I'm very anti-microservices, and rather than implement them for organizational reasons (read: teams unable to work together), I think that the most important business objects need to be maintained at a single point. Managing user identity at a single point is a valid reasons for microservices; like Google does with gmail/search/drive/storage/cloud services/youtube/android/etc.
Why? Can't a monolith be refactored?
> If each business unit/domain has their own "monolith"
This furiously looks like accidental microserviced data; which is kind of ironic considering the original comment was about "Avoid microservices entirely".
And yes, important business objects managed by different microservices are a PITA to merge; basically you're going to ask the users themselves to merge profiles, and they'll answer "we're divorced now" / "I like it better having multiple accounts, I get more promo codes" / "Why should I?" / "I don't care" / "Who are you?".
Maybe a question is: what is today's hot tech?
Do we even care as long as we get paid?
React, Kubernetes, Docker, GraphQL, Elixir
You're absolutely right. So few companies are solving actual problems anymore. It's all a cyclical bullshit hype cycle with very little innovation. Once the hot tech company IPOs, VC's force feed the next wave of bullshit tech/ideas.
I hope Fowler is getting compensated well by the cloud companies for his misinterpreted advice.
If they were run by smart people they'd realize that the cost of maintenance for dozens of new microservices to wrap around a bunch of shitty legacy acquisitions is far more expensive than just refactoring the legacy apps (or tearing out chunks and shoving them in other products, or making brand new products out of one or two features). But try telling some C-level bozos from an industry that knows nothing about tech that.