You’re right, that’s a very fair point. I should’ve made it clear that the middle ground of moderately-sized but logically separate services is very much a good

You’re right, that’s a very fair point. I should’ve made it clear that the middle ground of moderately-sized but logically separate services is very much a good world to be in. I’d actively encourage splitting a monolith into services when the candidate split would be: 1. A service that has a clear purpose that can be explained either separately from the monolithic whole or as a complementary piece 2. It will receive enough active development that the cost of upgrading/on-going investment is an acceptable percent of total work time 3. It can improve the organisations state of ‘ownership’ and better align the codebase with the team structure that own it There is always a middle ground, and I should’ve done better to explain that.