4 ms·

In a lot of cases Microservices are the cheaper option. Keeping your code in a monolith requires a lot more investment in tooling (to manage a large monorepo, b

In a lot of cases Microservices are the cheaper option. Keeping your code in a monolith requires a lot more investment in tooling (to manage a large monorepo, because apparently our industry has collectively forgotten that you can actually build separate libraries and keep them in different repositories) and coordination between multiple teams working on a single large project. The simplest solution is often for management to throw their hands in the air and let each team stake out their own territory and own their own services. You certainly pay a cost for it in terms of overall infrastructure complexity, but maybe if you're lucky you get some resilience and scalability out of it.

ozim 6y ago
That is what I am usually annoyed by when reading discussions like that. Someone assumes a context and throws in his experience like it would be applicable to every company and every project. Using their own definitions for industry buzzwords and by that making it more confusing for others, where those others start doing the same again as a response which brings nothing to the general understanding of things. When reading article I assumed author was not going to tackle project with multiple teams. I expect he was writing about a lot of projects that don't ever live to need more teams. You have a lot of projects where you have 10-15 devs as one team on it and those are huge projects but there are no downsides of a monorepo because it still works fine and is single repo/application. I would say monorepo should be defined as: repo where you have all projects for a company that don't need to be linked in any way. Because what I understand gave start to the term was Google having such use case, where they wanted ALL things in one repo. Having one project in one repository cannot be named "monorepo" that is just normal repository and that's what monolith in a single repo is.

ozim 6y ago

That is what I am usually annoyed by when reading discussions like that. Someone assumes a context and throws in his experience like it would be applicable to every company and every project. Using their own definitions for industry buzzwords and by that making it more confusing for others, where those others start doing the same again as a response which brings nothing to the general understanding of things. When reading article I assumed author was not going to tackle project with multiple teams. I expect he was writing about a lot of projects that don't ever live to need more teams. You have a lot of projects where you have 10-15 devs as one team on it and those are huge projects but there are no downsides of a monorepo because it still works fine and is single repo/application. I would say monorepo should be defined as: repo where you have all projects for a company that don't need to be linked in any way. Because what I understand gave start to the term was Google having such use case, where they wanted ALL things in one repo. Having one project in one repository cannot be named "monorepo" that is just normal repository and that's what monolith in a single repo is.