> With a lot of systems, the business system design is complex enough in the first place that if you add a distributed system design to it as well you just end up with a colossal mess.
The goals of system design are a) a system actually works, b) the system is not a colossal mess.
In a similar manner, the challenge of any engineering field is to not allow things to become overly complex.
> A normal system design, derisively called a monolith by some, is much clearer and explicit. It's less code. It's more reliable, less brittle. It comes with less footguns.
You're presuming that your average monolith is the result of a refined design. It is not. The main gripe that the luddite-like movement directs at systems design in general is basically the reality that software projects actually need planning and a working software architecture, where in monoliths they can just pile stuff in there without thought or criteria.
> Doesn't seem like you're actually disagreeing then, if systems design can apply just as well to a 'monolith' and it's often the better design.
"Can" and "do" are two different words.
"Monolith" is often a cop out to hide amorphous big-ball-of-mud projects. In fact, the luddite-like movement's aversion to system design is rooted in the fact that it's not necessary, and their irrational aversion to microservices and distributed systems and systems design lies in the fact that, unlike monoliths, they are far less tolerant of hacking together big balls of mud and demand instead some degree of discipline to design a system and comply with the system design.
> unlike monoliths, they are far less tolerant of hacking together big balls of mud and demand instead some degree of discipline to design a system and comply with the system design.
A demand that is often poorly met, leaving one with a distributed ball of mud that is more difficult to reason about and refactor.
The goals of system design are a) a system actually works, b) the system is not a colossal mess.
In a similar manner, the challenge of any engineering field is to not allow things to become overly complex.
> A normal system design, derisively called a monolith by some, is much clearer and explicit. It's less code. It's more reliable, less brittle. It comes with less footguns.
You're presuming that your average monolith is the result of a refined design. It is not. The main gripe that the luddite-like movement directs at systems design in general is basically the reality that software projects actually need planning and a working software architecture, where in monoliths they can just pile stuff in there without thought or criteria.