[smokel]

An interesting angle would be how to get out of this mess.

Here's one: In politics we see national and supranational governments take on the job of making large decisions. Style guides and best practices on whether to use microservices or not are, at best, made at a company level.

Would it be interesting if these architecture decisions were made, or at least kept in check by a body that is larger than a company?

Perhaps we could have some laws that dictate that you must (at least partially) understand how software works before you can buy it. Especially for government contracts.

[threeseed]

Just a lesson in life.

The second you think you are smarter and more informed than the people on the ground is the second you revealed yourself to be a fool.

Because having spent decades working for government and enterprises I can assure you that we aren't all stupid and need laws to protect us from ourselves. Instead we are often placed in really challenging and unique circumstances that drive the architecture and design of what gets built.

For example micro-services often works well in places where you have distributed teams that for security, governance or logistical reasons need to work independently and can't collaborate effectively with a monolith architecture. Or where certain components e.g. authentication, payments need a hard separation from the rest of the platform.

[smokel]

Hm, your ad hominem isn't really called for.

Obviously not all in government are stupid, I was not implying this. I was rather suggesting that some are, and that something might be done to avoid problems with that.

Also, microservices can be great, but when used in the wrong context, obviously are not. We are not discussing that either.

Edit: perhaps you may have misunderstood my comment, and that may be due to my clumsy way of stating it. I was actually suggesting that companies learn from governments.