1. 13
  1.  

  2. 4

    I don’t seem to grasp what is the DDD critique from the article. It wanders from partially describing DDD to talking about MVC patterns. I suspect it confuses software design methodologies with software implementation methodologies.

    Software design methodologies are interesting as a whole, and a critique of DDD is curiously interesting but unfortunately this looks simply like click bait.

    1. 3

      It’s a good criticism: both yours and his.

      The way I looked at it was like this: so much of DDD is about how the software looks, what goes where. (Yes, there’s event storming and few other methodology tricks, but the real thrust of it is program control by types). This article is about process, how do you go about incrementally developing a large system over time?

      What this author groks about software development – which oddly enough may be illustrated by his essay itself – is that DDD is nice and pure. Real-word development is messy with a bunch of stuff going on all over the place.

      There’s a lot of tension between the two theses for reasons I won’t go into here. I think the key thing to ask the DDD folks is “How does this incrementally grow over time?” and the key thing to ask authors like this one is “But what’s the best way to organize everything?”

    2. 3

      As much as I enjoy contrarian views on things, it is difficult to accept his premise because deus ex framework: every concern seems like it is magically handled by his framework. It seems disingenuous to paint DDD as this pure ivory tower thing while waxing poetic about how one’s framework handles everything without any issue.

      I do think that applying DDD can be quite a bear, esp in more conventional languages. The methodology is often applied wholesale, as well, rather than being a fount of inspiration.