> I wonder why no one ever talks about architectures in the middle between those two Because that's the default. It doesn't make intuitive sense to integrate e

> I wonder why no one ever talks about architectures in the middle between those two Because that's the default. It doesn't make intuitive sense to integrate every separate service you develop internally into one huge bulky thing, nor to split up every little feature into even more small services that need a ton of management mechanisms and glue to even be functional. Only after advocates for both extremes sprung up does it make sense to invent, as you did, a new word for the thing in the middle. It's just the sensible thing to do in most situations.