The author argues that abstract architectural discussions about microservices are often unproductive. Instead of focusing on theoretical benefits and drawbacks, conversations should center on concrete business problems and how microservices might address them. Architects tend to get bogged down in ideal scenarios and complex diagrams, losing sight of the practicalities of implementation and the potential negative impact on team productivity. The author advocates for a more pragmatic, iterative approach, starting with a monolith and gradually decomposing it into microservices only when justified by specific business needs, like scaling particular functionalities or enabling independent deployments. This shift in focus from theoretical architecture to measurable business value ensures that microservices serve the organization, not the other way around.
The author, a self-described veteran of numerous microservices implementations, expresses a growing frustration with how the concept of microservices is often approached and discussed, particularly within the architectural planning stages. They argue that conversations with architects about microservices frequently devolve into abstract, theoretical debates that are detached from the practical realities and complexities of implementing and managing such systems. These discussions, often dominated by a focus on idealized architectural diagrams and theoretical benefits, fail to grapple with the significant operational overhead and technical challenges inherent in a microservices architecture.
The author contends that many architects approach microservices as a purely technical solution, overlooking the crucial organizational and cultural changes required for successful implementation. They lament the prevalence of discussions centered around choosing the "right" technology stack or defining the "perfect" service boundaries, while neglecting the crucial human element. This includes considerations like team structure, communication patterns, and the ability to effectively manage distributed systems. The author emphasizes that the operational burden of microservices, encompassing aspects like monitoring, logging, tracing, and deployment pipelines, is often significantly underestimated or outright ignored in these initial architectural discussions.
Furthermore, the author observes a tendency for architects to focus on the perceived benefits of microservices, such as independent deployments and improved scalability, without adequately addressing the inherent trade-offs. They highlight the increased complexity in areas like inter-service communication, data consistency, and fault tolerance that accompanies a distributed architecture. The lack of real-world experience with these challenges often leads to overly optimistic estimations of the effort required to implement and maintain a microservices system.
Instead of engaging in abstract architectural debates, the author advocates for a more pragmatic, experience-driven approach to microservices adoption. They suggest that architects should prioritize understanding the specific business problem being addressed and exploring alternative solutions before jumping into a microservices architecture. They propose focusing on demonstrable business value and iteratively evolving the architecture based on practical experience and feedback. This involves starting with a simpler, more manageable system and gradually introducing microservices only when justified by clear business needs and a demonstrable understanding of the associated operational complexities. The author concludes by emphasizing the importance of learning from practical experience and adapting strategies based on real-world outcomes, rather than relying solely on theoretical models and abstract architectural discussions.
Summary of Comments ( 37 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43515563
Hacker News commenters generally agreed with the author's premise that architects often over-engineer microservice architectures. Several pointed out that the drive towards microservices often comes from vendors pushing their products and technologies, rather than actual business needs. Some argued that "architect" has become a diluted title, often held by those lacking practical experience. A compelling argument raised was that good architecture should be invisible, enabling developers, rather than dictating complex structures. Others shared anecdotes of overly complex microservice implementations that created more problems than they solved, emphasizing the importance of starting simple and evolving as needed. A few commenters, however, defended the role of architects, suggesting that the article painted with too broad a brush and that experienced architects can add significant value.
The Hacker News post titled "Why I'm No Longer Talking to Architects About Microservices" (linking to an article on the same topic) generated a moderate amount of discussion, with several commenters sharing their perspectives on the role of architects in microservice adoption and the challenges of implementing them effectively.
Several commenters echoed the sentiment of the original article, expressing frustration with architects who promote microservices as a silver bullet without a deep understanding of the complexities involved. One commenter noted how some architects focus excessively on theoretical purity and complex diagrams, losing sight of the practical considerations and trade-offs required in real-world projects. They highlighted the importance of understanding the problem domain and choosing the right architecture for the specific needs, rather than blindly following trends.
Another commenter pointed out the potential disconnect between architects who design systems and the developers who actually build and maintain them. They emphasized the need for architects to be more hands-on and involved in the implementation process, gaining practical experience with the technologies they advocate. This, they argued, would lead to more realistic and effective architectural decisions.
The discussion also touched upon the importance of communication and collaboration between architects and developers. One comment suggested that the issue isn't necessarily architects themselves, but rather a lack of clear communication and shared understanding. They advocated for a more collaborative approach, where architects and developers work together to define the architecture and ensure its successful implementation.
A different perspective was offered by a commenter who argued that architects do have a valuable role to play in microservice adoption, particularly in large organizations. They suggested that architects can help establish guidelines, patterns, and best practices for implementing microservices consistently across different teams. However, they acknowledged the risk of architects becoming detached from the realities of development, reinforcing the need for practical experience and ongoing communication.
Some commenters also discussed the potential downsides of microservices, such as increased complexity, operational overhead, and the need for robust monitoring and logging. They cautioned against adopting microservices prematurely or without a clear understanding of the benefits and trade-offs.
While there was a general agreement on the challenges associated with microservice adoption and the importance of pragmatic architectural decisions, the comments also highlighted the diverse perspectives on the role of architects in this process. The discussion emphasized the need for collaboration, communication, and a deep understanding of both the technical and organizational context when implementing microservices.