In the ever-evolving tech landscape, we seem to have developed an interesting habit: Whenever a company announces a significant architectural change, the entire industry reacts like teenagers discovering that their favorite band changed their style. “OMG, AWS moved away from serverless! I’m literally dying right now! 😱.” Let’s examine this phenomenon and understand why this mindset might be holding us back.
The Great Serverless Debate
AWS recently published a blog post describing how they migrated a serverless service to a container-based architecture, reporting significant cost savings. The internet exploded faster than a Jenkins pipeline after a failed dependency update. “Serverless is dead!” they proclaimed, as if millions of Lambda functions suddenly cried out in terror and were abruptly silenced.
The Minimalist Architecture Movement
Peter Levels dropped a truth bomb by sharing that he built his successful startups using nothing more than a single VPC and plain HTML/CSS — no frameworks and no complex architecture. It’s like competing in a Nascar race on a tricycle and still placing first. The internet’s reaction? “We’ve been over-engineering everything!” Meanwhile, somewhere, a Kubernetes cluster sheds a single container tear.
The Microservices Pendulum
Some companies are moving back to monolithic architectures after their experience with microservices. Right on cue, the tech community asks: “Are microservices dead?” This is like watching your friend go through dating apps: “Microservices are perfect! No wait, they’re too complicated. Actually, I miss microservices. You know what? I think I’ll just stay single… I mean, monolithic.”
The Problem with Silver Bullets
What’s really going on here? We’re acting like that friend who tries every new diet trend: “I’m going keto! No, wait, intermittent fasting! Actually, I only eat what a developer in Silicon Valley would eat in 1999!” This raises some important questions:
Why do we assume there must be one “right way” to build systems?
If there were universal solutions, why would we need skilled engineers?
Why can’t we accept that different contexts require different solutions?
The Reality: Context is King
The truth is far more nuanced than the headlines suggest. Let’s break it down:
For a small company with 20 people:
A monolithic application might be perfect
Deployment is straightforward
Dependencies are manageable
Your biggest technical debate is probably still about tabs vs. spaces
The 200+ Engineer Organization
The same monolithic benefits exist, but…
Teams want ownership over services
Single CI pipeline becomes a bottleneck
Different teams need different deployment cycles
Your architecture diagram looks like a plate of spaghetti had a baby with a circuit board
Serverless isn’t universally better or worse — it depends on:
Development costs
Maintenance requirements
Billing patterns
How much you enjoy debugging functions that only fail every third full moon
Moving Forward: Embracing Complexity
Instead of chasing silver bullets, we should:
View problems as sets of requirements with multiple possible solutions
Accept that no solution is perfect
Choose approaches based on their trade-offs in our specific context
Remember that today’s perfect solution is tomorrow’s technical debt
Conclusion: The Zen of Engineering
Picture this: You’re sitting in a dimly lit room, surrounded by monitors displaying various architectures — microservices dancing with monoliths, serverless functions floating around like digital butterflies, and containers stacked like cosmic building blocks. A wise old engineer appears (probably wearing a vintage Unix t-shirt) and whispers:
“Young grasshopper, the path to enlightenment is not found in the latest Medium article about how Company X scaled to infinity using only abacuses and positive thinking. True wisdom comes from understanding that every architecture decision is like choosing toppings for a pizza in a room full of developers — there will always be debates, trade-offs, and that one person who inexplicably wants pineapple.”
Remember: In a world obsessed with finding the next big thing, sometimes the most revolutionary act is to take a step back and admit that maybe, just maybe, there’s more than one way to get your code to production without having an existential crisis.
And hey, if all else fails, you can always blame it on the cache. It’s probably the cache’s fault anyway.
Top comments (2)
Excellent post, Matan!
Thank you @sdeby