I find these drive-by-attacks on CQRS to be particularly frustrating. Some people know CQRS or CQS are fairly straightforward ideas that can be nice to use and give you some benefits. Some people believe CQRS is some kind of elitist architecture authoritarianism bogeyman in the same category as the microservice pushback.
There's definitely some that hold CQRS, DDD, TDD, ... as _the_ way to design software and over-engineer around it, so I can understand some pushback.
Knowing those patterns is very helpful as a way to think about design problems, as long as you have the common sense to realize applying the pattern "by the book" is often overkill and you can just take some ideas out of it.
That article conflates as "Pure engineering" both reducing a software system to a small set of cohesive concepts, and architecture astronauts, when those are polar opposites.
I searched for "CQRS" in both the HN thread that I linked and the article that that linked, and the only mention I could find was this:
> Companies burned hundreds of thousands of engineer-hours migrating from monoliths to microservices, or from HTTP service calls to event-sourced architecture, or from event-sourced architecture to full CQRS, and so on.
Is that what you're talking about? imo this hardly counts as an attack on CQRS itself. The issue is rather with enterprise companies forcing the migration of large codebases based mostly on hype.
The reason you missed it is because it's a relentless attack on anything testing, anything DDD, anything CQRS, generally speaking across HN or Reddit or anywhere else. I didn't mean it was just this thread. The example I gave was just another one of them!
I'm struggling to make sense of what you're saying. Is there something concrete - some subtlety - that I missed?
I searched HN comments for mentions of "CQRS" over the past year. It's mentioned very infrequently outside of "who's hiring" posts, and mostly in a neutral manner. Very little of what I'd describe as a "drive-by attack".
