On the map

At the centre Breaking up a monolith takes years rather than months not because the work is hard but because the business keeps adding to it faster than you can pull pieces out. Holds TPThuan Pham Read this korrent →

• Similar wording A company on a monolith cannot use AI on it: no model in the next eighteen months will hold that codebase, so the monolith has to be broken up or rewritten. Holds SYSteve Yegge
• Similar wording Ship for three to six months with nobody reading the code and the codebase gets so bad that starting over is easier than fixing it — we ran a lights-off software factory and shut it down. Holds DHDex Horthy
• Similar wording Two people with agents can reach enterprise-grade codebase complexity in weeks -- what took organisations years, and they at least adapted to it as it grew. Holds MZMario Zechner
• Similar wording Letting non-programmers vibe-code features into a large existing product destroys its architecture, even when every individual change looks defensible. Holds DHDavid Heinemeier Hansson
• Similar wording Poor internal quality begins to slow a team down within a few weeks, so almost no project is short enough for cutting corners to pay off. Holds MFMartin Fowler
• Similar wording Repeated rewrites are the correct answer under fast growth, because a system specified to scale forever would take so long to build that the company would die before it shipped. Holds TPThuan Pham
• Similar wording A year from now every coding model on the market will still take a bad instruction at face value and go fix the listed issues, where a human senior engineer would insist on a rewrite. Holds DSDan Shipper
• Similar wording Coding agents made implementation cheap without making roadmaps shorter or software better -- the binding constraint was never how fast code gets written. Holds SPSunil Pai