| Thank you for your comprehensive and detailed feedback! I'll leave Joakim to respond to your comments about his presentation, and I'll respond directly to your comments about the nutshell video. > you've actually never demonstrated your product to me once That's partially true, although I'd argue that by showing the components and bases from an example system, we are showing "the product". Perhaps you're thinking about showing code or filesystem structure from a complete production Polylith workspace? We do that in other videos, but didn't think it would be a good fit in the 10-minute "why?" introduction. > The toothpick model isn't a mess, it's a masterpiece. I admire the person who made it, but you're telling me that I shouldn't want to build software with that model. I agree that the toothpick model is a masterpiece! However, the reason we shouldn't want to build software in the same way comes down to one word: change. The real Whitehouse doesn't change shape very often, but all the software I've ever been involved in building does. That's why building software with LEGO pieces is so much better than building it with toothpicks and glue. Which is exactly why it's a such strong metaphor. > Secondly, the Lego analogy is overdone. As I said in another post, every architecture has made this claim, even if they are actually toothpicks. You might be right about this, but most of the other recent architectures we'd come across seemed to steer away from talking about LEGO (onion, hexagon, DDD, microservices, etc.), so we were hoping it wasn't overused. |