4 ms·
It's neither obsolete, nor antiquated. People in this thread seem to conflate DDD and OOP which is understandable given that 90% of DDD resources target the typ
by dm3 12y ago
It's neither obsolete, nor antiquated. People in this thread seem to conflate DDD and OOP which is understandable given that 90% of DDD resources target the typical enterprise Java/C# setting.
The truth is, DDD consists of two parts: tactical patterns, such as Entity, Value Object or Aggregate Root and strategic design patterns such as Ubiquituos Language, Bounded Context or Context Maps. Tactical patterns are much easier to understand and apply, but most of the benefits claimed by DDD are provided by the application of strategic design.
Sadly, most people starting with DDD focus on the tactical patterns and technology, then get demotivated when the benefits do not appear.
- Glide 12y agoIf you manage to just get something like Ubiquitous Language through you've already gotten a LOT of value from DDD. It really helped me when I started when I had to reason about code, requirements, and communication mismatches.
- ExpiredLink 12y agoAFAIK, "Ubiquitous Language" nowadays is considered impractical by DDD aficionados.
- socceroos 12y agoI agree completely. As someone who has been studying DDD for myself I concur that the strategic design is where I struggle and where DDD really shines. I still can't quite understand bounded contexts.