Programming

17525 readers

402 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

The False Dichotomy of Monolith vs. Microservices (www.infoq.com)

submitted 1 year ago by cfarre to c/programming

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

We should stop talking about monolith vs. microservice and instead have a more nuanced debate about right-sized services.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I’ve heard it much better described as a “distributed monolith”, which makes complete sense to me. It’s what you get when you “break up” a monolith into “services”, but the spaghetti is still there, it’s just distributed across services now. You have to actually eliminate tight coupling, define the correct boundaries, and vigilantly respect them. All of which should happen from within the monolith first, ideally, where you still have the massive luxury of one codebase to deal with as you make the huge refactors necessary before completely decoupling into services. Even better, do this required prerequisite work and discover that your monolith is actually… fine.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah...I don't think he was talking about "distributed monolith" in that instance, but he does talk about it in the article. It's weird, cause he obviously knows why it's an antipattern, and why microservices are a categorically different thing, but then says stuff like that, with what I can only assume is a straight face.

I think maybe he's trying to bolster his point that "it's not a binary distinction, and you're trying to achieve the same things with either architecture," but you gotta be careful to not accidentally say "mix and match, anything goes!" And IMO he's not that careful, lol.

My test is always "What is my hypothetical simple-but-pushy CTO going to latch onto and how annoying would that be for me?"