A few examples I have seen.

1. Documenting every line of production code with a mechanical description of what the command does. See Code Complete or The Pragmatic Programmer for an explanation of why this leads to bugs.
2. Having every program in a system create and destroy block files. The programs in question never did run synchronously, but the block files meant that if anything unexpectedly crashed, there was a good chance that the system would refuse to run again. (Most of the programs should have been function calls, but I digress.)
3. How about writing long programs in straightline code rather than breaking out functions. For programs of several hundred lines it is faster end to end to produce it breaking out some functions.
4. How about using goto in preference to function calls, looping constructs, etc? People used to do that at one time. (Not that goto is uniformly bad. I use it from time to time...)

Says tilly:

A few examples I have seen.

But none of those are examples of what I thought the original poster was asking about.

I was not saying that no engineering is better than any other engineering. The original question did not seem to me to be about implementation details.

As I said in my original reply to Re: Monk ethics: Beauty vs. Power, it is a minor nit about one point in your reply. When you say that "All have their places" I would have to say, Only if some of those places are in the dustbin of history.

I know you know better, but some relativists try to make ridiculous claims about all systems being equal. When such claims become an excuse to not learn how to be more effective, the possibility of such a misunderstanding is good to address. (Even if they are slightly off the original topic.)