story
One of the patterns that I have noted in the past 3 decades in the field is that operational complexity is far more accessible than conceptual complexity to the practitioners. Microservices shift complexity from conceptual to operational. With some rare exceptions, most MS designs I've seen were proposed by teams that were incapable of effective conceptual modeling of their domain.
That is the question being discussed.
Most of microservice implementation is within a single team. That is the real question being discussed.
I think it's not, but I would like to hear other opinions.
I guess the context is only implelied in your parent post.
The rise of the network API in the last 20 years has proven it's own benefits. Whether you are calling a monolith of a microservice, it's easier to upgrade the logic without recompiling and re-linking all dependencies.
For example, microservices tend to communicate via strings of bytes (e.g. containing HTTP requests with JSON payloads, or whatever). We could do a similar thing with `void` in C, or `byte[]` in Java, etc.
Languages which support 'separate compilation' only need to recompile modules which have changed; if all of our modules communicate using `void
` then only the module containing our change will be recompiled.It's also easy to share a `void` between modules written in different languages, e.g. using a memory-mapped file, a foreign function interface, etc.
It's also
relatively* easy to hook such systems into a network; it introduces headaches regarding disconnection, packet loss, etc. but those are all standard problems with anything networked. The actual logic would work as-is (since all of the required parsing, validation, serialisation, etc. is already there, for shoehorning our data in and out of `void*`).If these benefits were so clear, I would expect to see compiled applications moving in this direction. Yet instead I see the opposite: stronger, more elaborate contracts between modules (e.g. generic/parametric types, algebraic data types, recursive types, higher-kinded types, existential types, borrow checkers, linear types, dependent types, etc.)
