David Heinemeier Hansson

The Prime Video team at Amazon has published a rather remarkable case study on their decision to dump their serverless, microservices architecture and replace it with a monolith instead. This move saved them a staggering 90% on operating costs, and simplified the system too. But beyond celebrating their good sense, I think there's a bigger point here.

Even Amazon can't make sense of serverless or microservices

Does that make microservices/serverless a bad choice? I don’t think so. Don’t blame the architecture, but the bad design and code choices.
Some devs overengineer architecture without thinking about the performance/costs implication.
In the 15 years of my career I have seen the industry changing the webdev trends many times.
My conclusion is that we aren’t back to the beginning. Monoliths, microservices &amp; serverless can coexist, and have been coexisting, there is no wrong or right approach, you just need good devs and good teams.

<blockquote>
Replacing method calls and module separations with network invocations and service partitioning within a single, coherent team and application is madness in almost all cases.
</blockquote>
In my current case we are separating services based on problem domain. Network calls are made by client apps that would do so regardless. If designed properly very little (security, logging, etc.) is shared between services. Again we are working with 5-6 very comprehensive services rather than hundreds.

sigh I wish he didn’t cherry pick out the statement that supports views and ignore the summary.
Also the clickbait title was a bit disappointing.
In the article too they already started to talk about scaling vertically hitting limitations and having to shard, which is a distributed systems technique.
oh well.

There’s still a place for them, smaller scale operations benefit from the ease of plugging in Microservices when there isn’t a budget for more in depth engineering