How can you choose between monolithic and modular software architecture for system development?

For startups or MVPs, monolithic can be a great start - it's straightforward and quick. But as your app grows, challenges in scaling and flexibility emerge. It's like building a house. Starting with a bungalow is easier, but adding floors later is tough! Going modular might mean more setup time initially, but it pays off as you scale ??. So, it's vital to forecast growth and choose wisely.

When choosing between a monolithic and modular it's vital to consider factors like budget and team size. Modular architectures, especially microservices, often require more resources for development, support, hosting, and maintenance. Each microservice in a modular system functions independently, which can be advantageous for scalability and flexibility but also means more components to manage. This can result in increased operational complexity and infrastructure costs. On the other hand, monolithic architectures are generally more cost-effective in the short term, as they are simpler to develop and maintain. However, as your project scales or becomes more complex, you might encounter challenges related to maintainability and scalability.

Spot on! I've often likened the choice to planning a city. A village (small application) might start organically, with everything close by—akin to a monolithic system. But as it grows into a bustling city, you need districts (separate app tiers / modules) to manage the complexity. Azure's offerings, like App Services, Serverless functions and Azure SQL / Cosmos DB, make it feasible to evolve from a simple setup to a more granular, modular (even microservices) approach. Always weigh the present needs against anticipated growth, keeping the team's strengths in mind.

One practical approach I've found invaluable is adopting a "Strangler Fig" pattern. Start by building and integrating new features as separate modules while the monolithic system remains operational. Over time, as these modules mature, they start taking over responsibilities from the monolithic core. Azure App Services, Functions or Logic apps are good here. This piecemeal approach minimises risks, allowing continuous feedback. Migrating is less about a big switch and more about steady evolution. "Strangler Fig" is a software architectural pattern used primarily for migrating legacy systems to newer ones. Named after the strangler fig tree, which grows on a host tree and eventually "strangles" and outlives it.

s businesses expand, monolithic system limitations surface. Netflix, facing immense user growth, adopted a microservices-based architecture in 2009, allowing them to efficiently scale components. Uber's post-2015 shift similarly catered to their booming operations. The architecture choice hinges on business needs, growth predictions, and technical challenges. eBay started as a monolithic application but switched to a modular, service-oriented architecture as their user base and product offerings grew, and SoundCloud moved to microservices to better handle their rapidly expanding user base and feature set.

Contemplating monolithic vs. modular isn't binary. Many firms adopt hybrid architectures, blending monolithic cores with modular elements for smoother transitions. Embracing microservices also shifts organizational dynamics, pushing teams towards a "you build it, you run it" approach. This can redefine roles and company culture. Transitioning often demands new tools and infrastructure, with platforms like Azure, ASW and GCP simplifying the move by offering tailored solutions for modular setups.

Monolithic systems tend to centralize decision-making, requiring strong communication between teams to prevent bottlenecks. A highly collaborative team with shared expertise can thrive here. But without it? Silos form quickly, and the monolith becomes a source of friction. On the other hand, Modular architectures distribute responsibilities, enabling teams to work independently on isolated components. Sounds ideal, right? But here’s the catch: poorly aligned teams may build modules that conflict in design or duplicate efforts, leading to a "modular mess" rather than clean separation.