> When writing a distributed application, conventional wisdom says to split your application into separate services that can be rolled out independently. This approach is well-intentioned, but a microservices-based architecture like this often backfires, introducing challenges that counteract the benefits the architecture tries to achieve. Fundamentally, this is because microservices conflate logical boundaries (how code is written) with physical boundaries (how code is deployed). In this paper, we propose a different programming methodology that decouples the two in order to solve these challenges. With our approach, developers write their applications as logical monoliths, offload the decisions of how to distribute and run applications to an automated runtime, and deploy applications atomically. Our prototype implementation reduces application latency by up to 15× and reduces cost by up to 9× compared to the status quo.
> Seems like the mistake is building 300+ systems instead of a handful of systems.
But that’s not what happens on enterprise organisations. 90% of those are bought “finished” products, which then aren’t actually finished and you can be most certain that almost none of them are capable of sharing any sort of data without help.
Hell, sometimes you’ll even have 3 of the same system. You may think it’s silly, but it is what it is in non-tech enterprise where the IT department is viewed as a cost-center similar to HR but without the charisma and the fact that most managers think we do magic.
Over a couple of decades I’ve never seen an organisation that wasn’t like this unless it was exclusively focused on doing software development, and even in a couple of those it’s the same old story because they only build what they sell and not their internal systems.
One of the things I’m paid well to do is help transitions startups from their messy monoliths into something they can actually maintain. Often with extensive use of the cheaper external developers since the IT department is pure cost (yes it’s silly) and you just can’t do that unless you isolate software to specific teams and then set up a solid architecture for how data flows between systems. Not because you theoretically can’t, but because the teams you work with often barely know their own business processes. I currently know more about specific parts of EU energy tariffs than the dedicated financial team of ten people who work with nothing else, because I re-designed some of the tools they use and because they have absolutely no process documentation and a high (I’m not sure what it’s called in English, but they change employees all the time). Which is in all regards stupid, but it’s also the reality of sooo many places. Like, the company recently fired the only person who knows how HubSpot works for the organisation during down sizing… that’s the world you have to design systems for, and if you want it to have even a fraction of a chance to actually work for them, you need to build things as small and isolated as possible going all in on team topologies even if the business doesn’t necessarily understand what that is. Because if you don’t, you end up with just one person who knows how the HubSpot integrations and processes work.
It’s typically the same with monoliths, they don’t have to be complicated messes that nobody knows how work… in theory… but then they are build and maintained by a range of variously skilled people over 5 years and suddenly you have teams who hook directly into the massive mess of a DB with their Excel sheets. And what not.
> a high (I’m not sure what it’s called in English, but they change employees all the time).
To help you out, the word is attrition or turnover. Turnover would be more appropriate if the roles are refilled, attrition if the roles are never replaced.
A Google team published a paper on this last year: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3593856.3595909
Worth the read.