> The term micro can be misleading, though - there doesn’t have to be anything micro about the services. In fact, I would argue that if a service doesn’t do muc

> The term micro can be misleading, though - there doesn’t have to be anything micro about the services. In fact, I would argue that if a service doesn’t do much, it just creates more operational toll than benefits. A more appropriate name for this architecture is service-oriented architecture, but unfortunately, that name comes with some old baggage as well. What baggage is that? Because in my experience 90% of the argument revolves around the word "micro." If "micro" is indeed irrelevant to "microservices," let's name things better, yes?