4 ms·
> but the design thinking and decomposition strategy required to create a good microservices architecture are the same as those needed to create a well structur
by rtpg 11y ago
> but the design thinking and decomposition strategy required to create a good microservices architecture are the same as those needed to create a well structured monolith
I don't think that this quite captures the utility of something like microservices.
For example, if you split your frontend and backend into separate projects, then the barrier for entanglement becomes so much higher. Instead of just importing some frontend class for the backend, you're loading in stuff from a totally different project and making 2 coordinated patches for them. Doesn't that feel wrong somehow?
The appeal of microservices (much like functional programming) comes from imposing restrictions that make dangerous things harder. Reducing the possibility of breaking your own rules on clean programming.
(Disclaimer: I don't think microservices are worth it for smaller projects though)
- dietrichepp 11y ago> The appeal of microservices (much like functional programming) comes from imposing restrictions that make dangerous things harder. But, don't microservices make safe things harder too? What's the point in simultaneously making both safe and dangerous things harder?
- crdoconnor 11y ago>The appeal of microservices (much like functional programming) comes from imposing restrictions that make dangerous things harder. It makes everything harder for no particularly good reason. Dangerous or otherwise. Worse, if you do happen to create a distributed ball of mud you've almost certainly created a far bigger maintenance nightmare for yourself than if you created a "monolithic" ball of mud.