4 ms·
I read the DDD book by Evans some time ago. There's a bit where he was essentially saying "Even when you're really good at it, Domain modelling is still very ha
by codeulike 7y ago
I read the DDD book by Evans some time ago. There's a bit where he was essentially saying "Even when you're really good at it, Domain modelling is still very hard to get right". So that left me thinking: Well, why bother then? Why subscribe to this methodology is its so hard to properly realise the benefits?
- lucisferre 7y agoI'm really trying to understand what you are saying here. It reads like you are saying that because something is hard it is not worth the effort. I mean would you not expect the benefits to outweigh that effort, or at least assume that this is what the author believes to be true?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- james_s_tayler 7y agoI think there is a valid point to be made that as the difficulty of something goes up the number of people capable of producing good results with it goes down. That leaves all the other people who try to use and wind up producing poor results. If the difficulty is such that there is a greater chance you will produce a poor result with it than a good one then it might not be worth taking such a gamble but rather sticking to a simpler methodology capable of producing good results a greater portion of the time even though the best result it can possibly produce is less good than that of DDD. I really think there is an argument to be made for that. It's not that people are stupid, it's just that things are hard. Doing simpler things helps communication scale as it's easier to get everyone on the same page and engineering failures are almost always the result of communication failures across the engineering org.
- codeulike 7y agoYes that is exactly what I meant