>You sound extremely bitter, and extremely pompous with your "all the other devs are just dumb, I'm the only one who can see through the hype" attitude; especially your comment about younger developers.
I didn't say anything about "younger developers". Which comment are you referring to specifically?
Also, I hardly think I'm the only one who can see through the hype. Check out the rest of this thread. Most of the replies, including the parent post to which I was replying, could be characterized as anti-microservice.
Tech fads are rarely about good developers. They're normally about non-developer technical managers and/or bad developers, who are sometimes more self-aware than they appear at first glance and are consciously seeking diversions. Good inexperienced devs may be taken in by the first fad or two, but they generally come to realize that it's same shit, different day within a few years, and their skill level limits the direct damage (though their adherence to the fad may set the stage for additional indirect damage).
It was not my intent to offend or accuse anyone by criticizing this particular tech fad, and I'm sorry that you appear to have taken it personally.
---
I don't think we disagree about "microservice architecture" as a tool. Like all tools, it needs skilled practitioners to be used well. "Microservice architecture" is a bad descriptive term for a tool because it's too broad to have much specific meaning, but I accept that some people could use it to describe something decent, which I've already stated.
As my post said, however, I was discussing "microservice architecture" as a fad, which, let's be honest, is the case across the vast majority of cases in which the term "microservice architecture" is used.
People who aren't blindly chasing buzzwords are more likely to think of their architecture as a holistic entity built from a variety of useful and specific components rather than a zipped-up incarnation of a single $HOT_TREND, and are thus more likely to describe it descriptively, e.g., "we try to employ a reasonable separation of concerns", "we have a handful of independent services on the back-end", etc.
These things show a thoughtful, specific consideration of principles rather than literalist word-thought, and it's a good guideline (but, like all guidelines, imperfect!) for whether or not someone has processed what they're discussing or whether they're mindlessly mimicking the people they consider authoritative/influential.
It was not my intent to offend reasonable, thoughtful engineers who have implemented what they call "a microservice architecture". I meant only to indicate that this terminology is a red flag for a tech fad, under which many unreasonable, thoughtless "engineers" are seeking cover.
My personal recommendation would be to consider the terminology lost and not develop a new buzzword to replace it, as that will surely become lost too (see also: "SOA"/"service-oriented architecture", the previous incarnation).