2 ms·

That's... a bit more metacognition than maybe my snarky reply warrants. I didn't claim to be the only person who is smart enough to spot that a lot of online a

That's... a bit more metacognition than maybe my snarky reply warrants. I didn't claim to be the only person who is smart enough to spot that a lot of online architectural opinion-writers structure their opinion-pieces as strawman-takedowns of 'popular wisdom', and that this is another in that genre which appears to add nothing particularly further to the discussion. I never claimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, or that there might actually be better or worse ways of solving some problems. All I'm saying is that 'microservices are a bad choice when applied badly to the wrong problem' is tautologically true, and gets us no closer to understanding the objective criteria by which we can determine what 'bad' or 'good' mean.

ianros 4y ago
Well that may be what you intended to say, but much of what you put, well pretty much all of what you put, is simply an attack on the poster's character. What I read from your post boils down to "the poster is clearly an elitist who thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong, so his opinion isn't worthy of recognition and is wrong". Character attacks on the internet are self defeating and foolish in many ways. There are little to no stakes for the attacker if wrong (undermines the value of the attack). The attacker is being hostile to someone completely, or mostly, unknown/unfamiliar (foolish). The attack does nothing to address the actual argument/points being made (waste of time for readers). Rather than oppose the messenger, perhaps lead with opposing the message itself. It is far less hostile and is more productive. You will get better at countering the argument/points if you actively practice doing it, and it is better for everyone involved (more focus on the issue rather than the winning a battle against someone "bad"). You also might spare yourself counter takedowns like you got here, this one being particularly spicy. The article linked doesn't even seem to say that microservices are always bad. It simply says they are difficult to do, and the author sees them as over engineering. Overall a pretty common opinion.

ianros 4y ago

Well that may be what you intended to say, but much of what you put, well pretty much all of what you put, is simply an attack on the poster's character. What I read from your post boils down to "the poster is clearly an elitist who thinks he is right and everyone else is wrong, so his opinion isn't worthy of recognition and is wrong". Character attacks on the internet are self defeating and foolish in many ways. There are little to no stakes for the attacker if wrong (undermines the value of the attack). The attacker is being hostile to someone completely, or mostly, unknown/unfamiliar (foolish). The attack does nothing to address the actual argument/points being made (waste of time for readers). Rather than oppose the messenger, perhaps lead with opposing the message itself. It is far less hostile and is more productive. You will get better at countering the argument/points if you actively practice doing it, and it is better for everyone involved (more focus on the issue rather than the winning a battle against someone "bad"). You also might spare yourself counter takedowns like you got here, this one being particularly spicy. The article linked doesn't even seem to say that microservices are always bad. It simply says they are difficult to do, and the author sees them as over engineering. Overall a pretty common opinion.