Sometimes the right approach is to keep the consistency.
Other times, that approach is either impossible or catastrophic.
IMO software development is so diverse and complex that universal truths are very very rare.
But to us programmers, anything that promises to simplify the neverending complexity is very tempting. We want to believe!
So we're often the equivalent of Mike Tyson reading a book by Tiger Woods as we look down a half-pipe for the first time. We've won before and read books by other winners, now we're surely ready for anything!
Which leads to relational data stored in couchDB, datalayers reimplemented as microservices, simple static sites hosted in kubernetes clusters, spending more time rewriting tests than new features, and so on.
IMO, most advice in software development should be presented as "here's a thing that might work sometimes".
IMO software development is so diverse and complex that universal truths are very very rare.
But to us programmers, anything that promises to simplify the neverending complexity is very tempting. We want to believe!
So we're often the equivalent of Mike Tyson reading a book by Tiger Woods as we look down a half-pipe for the first time. We've won before and read books by other winners, now we're surely ready for anything!
Which leads to relational data stored in couchDB, datalayers reimplemented as microservices, simple static sites hosted in kubernetes clusters, spending more time rewriting tests than new features, and so on.
IMO, most advice in software development should be presented as "here's a thing that might work sometimes".