I think what was missed, in the article, is that the fundamental problem was centered around a shared architecture of destinations and shared code.
You cannot possibly have every destination be a separate repo and then have the development lifecycle of your shared code be so active that it ultimately puts at risk the architecture of your entire organization.
What makes shared code so perfect is having stability such that you extract your variant code into your non-shared code. Shared code should evolve at a much slower pace than your non-shared code or you risk this very outcome.
Microservices are not dead, nor are they the solution to everything. We need better architects.
You cannot possibly have every destination be a separate repo and then have the development lifecycle of your shared code be so active that it ultimately puts at risk the architecture of your entire organization.
What makes shared code so perfect is having stability such that you extract your variant code into your non-shared code. Shared code should evolve at a much slower pace than your non-shared code or you risk this very outcome.
Microservices are not dead, nor are they the solution to everything. We need better architects.