Here's an interesting read. It talks about how if you practice Test Driven Development (TDD) in an Agile environment, there is a lot of pressure to adhere to YAGNI. YAGNI stands for "you ain't gonna need it". Developers often try to predict what features the code might need in the future, and try to build it in right away.
The problem is that most of the time, you won't actually need that feature that you predicted you would. To avoid this problem, supporters of YAGNI try to write the smallest amount of code possible to accomplish something. TDD has a similar belief in that they stress writing the smallest amount of code possible to satisfy a test.
This seems like an extreme to me. While I agree that future proofing every part of your application is a silly idea, I don't think that this sort of TDD and YAGNI is very scalable. It's not really about doing the simplest thing possible, it's about the simplest thing possible that doesn't code you into a corner. You want to make reasonable assumptions about what will change, and future proof that. It's important to be pretty conservative with your guesses here, though.
A good developer will be able to draw on past experiences to predict that some things will happen. If they think it's easier to build it in now, they should. I would trust the judgement of an experienced developer over a best practice.
I feel like YAGNI is overcompensating for developers who apply design patterns to everything ever because they learned to do that in school. This is obviously the other extreme.
It's like software development practices are following a pendulum, going for extreme(Waterfall, design patterns everywhere) to extreme(Extreme Programming, YANGI). It's still a very volatile field because it's so young. Hopefully the industry will settle down somewhere in the middle.