Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →For a new project, starting with a monolith is often the simpler choice: one application and one deployment can reduce early coordination while a team learns what it is building. That is a starting preference, not a rule that monoliths always outperform microservices. CodeMonkeyG makes that case in “Why I Still Start With Monoliths,” while also identifying when growing complexity can justify splitting services.
Why begin with one application?
CodeMonkeyG’s argument is that a small team can work together inside one codebase, use one framework, and avoid coordinating several repositories and deployments before the product’s needs are clear. The author describes Laravel as providing authentication, authorization, database modeling, API endpoints, front-end support, and a testing harness; that is the author’s appraisal of the framework, not an independent feature comparison.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The same logic applies to deployment. A single deployable application can run on bare metal or in a container without requiring a large orchestration setup from day one. The point is to keep the initial operating arrangement manageable—not that containers or orchestration are inherently unnecessary.
What a monolith makes easier—and harder
| Decision area | Monolith | Microservices |
|---|---|---|
| Team coordination | A small team can make changes in one codebase and coordinate one application, as CodeMonkeyG argues. | Separate services can involve additional team and interface coordination; the 2021 Hacker News discussion offers perspectives on these trade-offs, not measured evidence. Hacker News discussion |
| Deployment and operations | One deployable asset can be a lower-overhead starting arrangement, according to the author. | Separating parts may offer deployment independence, but adds distributed-system complexity. The Kubernetes discussion transcript presents this tension rather than a universal verdict. Kubernetes discussion transcript |
| Scaling a busy component | You can add machines running the complete application, but each carries the whole application. That does not scale one resource-heavy endpoint independently. | A separated component can be scaled apart from other services, though the split introduces operational and coordination costs. |
| Changing boundaries | Internal boundaries can blur as the codebase grows, making changes harder to reason about. | Service boundaries can isolate parts, but choosing them requires a useful understanding of the domain and the team’s needs. |
This comparison is about likely trade-offs, not a performance ranking. The author’s essay is qualitative and experience-based; it does not establish that one architecture is faster, cheaper, or more reliable in general.
#1 Best Overall
A monolith still needs boundaries
Starting with one application does not mean putting every feature into an undifferentiated pile. Keep related responsibilities organized into modules and make dependencies between them deliberate. That gives the team room to change internal structure as it learns the domain, without taking on a network of separately deployed services before there is a concrete reason.
Community discussion around modular monoliths, coupling, and operational costs adds useful perspectives, but it is not empirical proof that one design is best. The practical point is to preserve clear boundaries whether the code runs as one application or several services.
Rank #2
When should a team consider extracting a service?
CodeMonkeyG identifies two concrete pressures: a resource-heavy endpoint that needs to scale independently, and a codebase whose blurred internal boundaries are slowing changes and making them harder to reason about. The author sums up the latter signal this way: “The slowdown is the real signal that it’s time to think about carving things apart.”
Before extracting anything, identify the constraint the split is intended to address. If a component needs different scaling, release, or operational treatment—or if a boundary has become a persistent source of change friction—separation may be worth evaluating. If the issue is simply that the project is new or the architecture seems more sophisticated, the essay gives no reason to treat that as sufficient justification.
Rank #3
What the recommendation does—and does not—claim
The essay’s opening questions—“What happens when your brilliant idea … needs to get deployed?” and “How will you handle real network traffic?”—are prompts to think about operations early, not evidence that a particular architecture solves either problem. Its position is narrower: a monolith can be a practical starting point while a team learns what the product needs, and microservices remain an option when specific constraints make their extra complexity worthwhile.
CodeMonkeyG’s post appeared on DEV Community on September 23, 2026, according to the search result; the result lists September 22 as the original publication date. The author profile describes CodeMonkeyG as a founding engineer, a profile-provided detail rather than independently verified experience. Those qualifications matter because the recommendation is an experience-based opinion, not a universal architectural law.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
