> Literally everybody trying to sell you an architecture - good or bad - would probably describe it as "more flexible, loosely-coupled and scalable". [...] If y

> Literally everybody trying to sell you an architecture - good or bad - would probably describe it as "more flexible, loosely-coupled and scalable". [...] If you elide or deny the existence of tradeoffs "loosely coupled" is a tradeoff; when I hear about an architecture being "loosely coupled", I assume that it allows substituting different components easily, but I also assume that it may be harder to evolve that interface and make use of the full capabilities on both sides. Sometimes I want that (if I'm looking to replace one of those components), but sometimes I want something more tightly integrated. Similarly, "flexible" is a tradeoff; some frameworks describe themselves as "opinionated" rather than "flexible".