4 ms·

DDD does not have a canonical implementation in the form you suggest - the modern consensus is that it is a problem space tool, not a solution space one. The me

by jen20 6y ago

DDD does not have a canonical implementation in the form you suggest - the modern consensus is that it is a problem space tool, not a solution space one. The meat of DDD is in the strategic design section, not the structural patterns which have clearly not evolved for the modern world. And no, none of those pieces of software listed use DDD, because none of them are business applications, and it would be very inappropriate for them to do so.

camgunz 6y ago
In fairness though, I think "business application" doesn't have a clear definition. What separates them from client/server games? Suddenly yeah, now you're thinking about CQRS, reading account information from a database, serializing state--certainly sounds like a business application to me. Doesn't Chrome connect to Google servers that talk to databases? Isn't VS Code an Electron app that talks to backend services? I would argue that thinking about things in terms of application type isn't that useful. Rather, I've gotten more mileage from thinking about the lower-level problems. Like do we have to deal with concurrent modification, do our users span timezones, blah blah blah. These things give me more to work with when designing an application than like, whatever its "type" is.