> The author himself did a retrospective that covers a few issues: https://abdullin.com/lokad-cqrs-retrospective/ https://abdullin.com/lokad-cqrs-retrospective/

> The author himself did a retrospective that covers a few issues: https://abdullin.com/lokad-cqrs-retrospective/ https://abdullin.com/lokad-cqrs-retrospective/ Having read the article: veeeeeery little of what is mentioned is related in any meaningful sense to CQRS... Horse-before-the-cart framework design is always bad. Encapsulating untested theories in frameworks instead of lifting them from operational designs, always bad. Building frameworks as a learning exercise, bad. Abstracting away data decisions and then trying to provide opinionated answers to storage at the framework level, very bad. Conflating logical system architecture with supplier provided products (ie cloud services), is framework _cancer_. That is simply not a reasonable starting point to provide value and scalable systems, and the end result was the same as all other similar attempts: an A for effort with a result that was at best 'close, but not quite...' To be clear: I do not intend this as criticism leveled at the author or the company. The article is great. I very much agree with his analysis though: > Lokad.CQRS was created with a very short-sighted design approach in mind, a reusable LEGO constructor...These days I'd try to limit the damage I inflict upon the developers and avoid writing any widely reusable frameworks This is where all the issues lay... Premature framework development causing up-front decisions untethered to practicality based on conjecture and prognostication instead of experience in a challenging domain insufficiently understood by the framework architect. From a high level perspective: neither CQRS, nor framework development, nor application development were sufficiently groked before being baked into a long-term production commitment. Those are organizational issues, not CQRS issues. In the same vein, coming from such an environment and basing judgment of DDD or CQRS on anything that came from that environment won't hold water. The architectural problems you're talking about, the core principles you think are flawed, work stunningly well in other places that have not made the same underlying mistakes. CQRS advocates != CQRS experts != framework experts.