> Dockerfiles are more versatile Not sure I follow? Docker Compose in no way trys to replace a Dockerfile or docker images - every container you specify in one

> Dockerfiles are more versatile Not sure I follow? Docker Compose in no way trys to replace a Dockerfile or docker images - every container you specify in one still has the exact same Dockerfile, compose can't replace this. I also think Compose is a fantastic tool, but to start comparing to Dockerfiles and Kubernetes suggests not understanding what Compose is for. The thing Compose does better than a bunch of loose dockerfiles especially is document in a runnable fashion the relationships between key containers in a given stack. This information alone can tell you a lot about how you would deploy in more complex environments, as well as giving you something you can usually deploy instantly with a docker compose up for local development work. Without compose, you typically have to rely on loose documentation much more, which may be stale or outdated and obviously isn't "runnable" like docker compose is. I also find it far easier to understand what volumes are critical for persistence when its coded in the Compose yaml, vs a bunch of -v args in the documentation for a docker run command launch.