[extra_rice]

> Anyone that isn't able to write modular code using the language features is going to write network spaghetti code, with the added benefit to debug network packets and connection issues on top of everything else.

This is the most important bit. To me microservices is just another way to arrange your system into module, not much different in concept to modules and packages. Regardless of whether you’re dealing with monolithic or distributed system, if your abstractions are poor, your work and your system will suffer.

[tluyben2]

> Regardless of whether you’re dealing with monolithic or distributed system

Agreeing somewhat, but not totally ; monoliths are much easier to test and stabilise. All bigger microservices projects I know (personally, not what I read from Uber etc) have tremendous overheads compared to their monolithic counterparts. Some of them are really nicely done, but there still is a lot of overhead in support (usually the services are written by different people (and possible different languages/environments, for instance .net core, .net framework (for Windows specific services) + Typescript/node), so other people need quite a large ramp up to get into them), networking, monitoring, etc. As far as I have seen, it needs a larger team.

And it is very different from having you modular built monolith in your IDE for a spin, than doing a little (local/dev) testrun of 25 microservices + the one you are working on. I can feel the benefits but I have yet to encounter them in real life; so far I have seen (smaller; ~100m/year rev) companies going back to monolith and most of the stories I read are from very large companies with massive development+deployment teams where you actually can have 3+ people per microservice.

If you are working with 3-4 people managing 20+ (changing, forming a complex system), I don't really seen it happen (but would love to see practical examples of that) while monoliths of the same complexity/functionality (literally; I worked on a few 'just because scaling!' rebuilds from monoliths->MS(->back)) have no issues at all with that.

[extra_rice]

I’m not really arguing which one is easier to run, maintain, or anything; I was just making a point about abstractions and system modularisation.

Hypothetically, I should be able to take a well-designed monolith and “deconstruct” it into a distributed system by deploying modules individually and replacing function calls with network calls. Going the opposite direction, I should be able to do the reverse with a well-structured distributed system.

This pattern of modularisation exists across the software stack; it goes as far as the digital logic level with lumped-element abstraction. In general, we trade-off some benefits with a more complex messaging mechanism, akin to threads sharing the same memory space VS processes communicating through sockets or files. In general these are all technical details that help us accomplish what we need our system to do, but pinning the right abstractions helps us actually reason about our system.