| > It's almost as if in order to succeed these days you need to discredit and disparage your competition rather than simply having a better product, and that's why I don't buy into buzz words at all. Meh. In order to sound smart on HN it's easiest to point at something and call it "hype". > Microservices are relatively new and unproven SOA is old as fuck. Microservices are also fairly old, but especially when you consider they're really just SOA + dogma. > Microservice architecture is also inherently designed to lock a customer into very specific tools that make future migration to any other platform a very costly decision in most cases... No? Not at all. > Instead of being charged for one single server annually, on microservices you can be charged for many individual components that run your app independently, and when usage skyrockets, it's a sticker shock that you can only stop by going offline. Alternatively phrased: If you only use one service you only pay for it, not for the whole suite of features you don't need or want. > We have also seen enough failures and pain points within microservice and even cloud architectures over the past two years alone to raise questions about whether or not it it indeed a better solution. And plenty of success stories. > We need to stop disparaging traditional (non-cloud) hosting and solutions that aren't obsolete at all in this manner, and focus on what works, what is secure, and what is cost effective in order to stay sustainable into the future. Microservices work, are secure, and are cost effective. Honestly your post contains no useful information and is satirically close to a "return to traditional family values!" speech. |