I think your reply and the parent can both be true, you're just using slightly the same words to describe different things.

The parent is talking more about elegant simplicity vs. sprawling, seemingly haphazard complexity, and you're talking more about durability to failure points and 'completeness'.

Likewise, in code, a lot of the most durable, battle tested software looks extremely inelegant and duct taped, as 90% of the code is dedicated to handling one-off patches and weird edge cases.