[lll-o-lll]

> I've never really understood why you couldn't just break up your monolith into modules

You can! We used to do this! Some of us still do this!

It is, however, much more difficult. Not difficult technically, but difficult because it requires discipline. The organisations I’ve worked at that have achieved this always had some form of dictator who could enforce the separation.

Look at the work done by John Lakos (and various books), to see how well this can work. Bloomberg did it, so can you!

Creating a network partition makes your system a distributed system. There are times you need this, but the tradeoff is at least an order of magnitude increase in complexity. These days we have a lot of tooling to help manage this complexity, but it’s still there. The combination of possible failure states is exponential.

Having said all this, the micro service architecture does have the advantage of being an easy way to enforce modularity and does not require the strict discipline required in a monolith. For some companies, this might be the better tradeoff.

[default-kramer]

> easy way to enforce modularity and does not require the strict discipline required in a monolith

In my experience, microservices require more discipline than monoliths. If you do a microservice architecture without discipline you end up with the "distributed monolith" pattern and now you have the worst of both worlds.

[Fanmade]

Yes, I completely agree. If your team doesn't have the skills to use a proper architecture within a monolith, letting them loose on a distributed system will make things a lot worse. I've seen that happen multiple times.

[gmfawcett]

> does not require the strict discipline required in a monolith

How so? If your microservices are in a monorepo, one dev can spread joy and disaster across the whole ecosystem. On the other hand, if your monolith is broken into libraries, each one in its own repo, a developer can only influence their part of the larger solution. Arguably, system modularity has little to do with the architecture, and much to do with access controls on the repositories and pipelines.

[lll-o-lll]

> Arguably, system modularity has little to do with the architecture, and much to do with access controls on the repositories and pipelines.

Monoliths tend to be in large monolithic repos. Microservices tend to get their own repo. Microservices force an API layer (defined module interface) due to imposing a network boundary. Library boundaries do not, and can generally be subverted.

I agree that modularity has nothing to do with the architecture, intrinsically, simply that people are pushed towards modularity when using microservices.

[camgunz]

People make this argument as though it's super easy to access stuff marked "private" in a code base--maybe this is kind of true in Python but it really isn't in JVM languages or Go--and as though it's impossible to write tightly coupled microservices. The problem generally isn't reaching into internal workings or coupling, the problem is that fixing it requires you to consider the dozens of microservices that depend on your old interface that you have no authority to update or facility to even discover. In a monolith you run a coverage tool. In microservices you hope you're doing your trace IDs/logging right, that all services using your service used it in the window you were checking, and you start having a bunch of meetings with the teams that control those services to coordinate the update. That's not what I think of when I think of modularity, and in practice what happens is your team forks a new version and hopes the old one eventually dies or that no one cares how many legacy microservices are running.

[Izkata]

> It is, however, much more difficult. Not difficult technically, but difficult because it requires discipline.

Before that, people need to know it's even an option.

Years ago when I showed a dev who had just switched teams how to do this with a feature they were partway through implementing (their original version had it threading through the rest of the codebase) it was like one of those "mind blown" images. He had never even considered this as a possibility before.

[dalyons]

i agree that its possible. From what i've seen its probably harder though than just doing services. You are fighting against human nature, organizational incentives, etc. As soon as the discipline of the developers, or vigilance of the dictator lapses, it degenerates.

[Fanmade]

It is really hard to read this for me. How can anyone think that it is harder to write a proper monolith than implementing a distributed architecture?

If you just follow the SOLID principles, you're already 90% there. If your team doesn't have the knowledge (it's not just "discipline", because every proper developer should know that they will make it harder for everyone including themselves if they don't follow proper architecture) to write structured code, letting them loose on a distributed system will make things much, much worse.

[dalyons]

its not really a technical problem. As others have mentioned on various threads, its a people coordination problem. Its hard to socially/organizationally coordinate the efforts of 100s of engineers to a single thing. It just is. If they're split into smaller chunks and put behind relatively stable interfaces, those people can work on their own on their own thing, roughly however they want. That was a major reason behind the original bezos service mandate email. You can argue that results in a harder overall technical solution (distributed is harder than monolith) but it is inarguably to me much easier organizationally.

You can sort of get there if you have a strong central team working on monolith tooling that enforces module seperation, lints illegal coupling, manages sophisticated multi deployments per use, allows team based resource allocation and tracking, has per-module performance regression prevention, etc. They end up having many of the organizational problems of a central DBA team, but its possible. Even then, I am not aware of many(any?) monoliths in this situation that have scaled beyond 500+ engineers that people are actually happy with the situation they've ended up in.

[Cthulhu_]

> some form of dictator who could enforce the separation.

Like a lead developer or architect? Gasp!

I wonder if the microservices fad is so that there can be many captains on a ship. Of course, then you need some form of dictator to oversee the higher level architecture and inter-service whatnots... like an admiral.