I don't understand anything here about the microfronted.
Why would you do that ?
You can already share and resuse components, modules, stores, functions ?
What I don't see here ?
Why would you do that ?
You can already share and resuse components, modules, stores, functions ?
What I don't see here ?
Say you have monolithic front end and you want to move to a new framework/version/etc. Instead of rewriting the whole app, you can approach it feature-by-feature and slowly replace the legacy app, Ship of Theseus style[0].
Another problem is tracking down inter-component bugs, especially if the code is behind a repository. How am I to make small tweaks? Bleh!
I haven't digested what Webpack 5 is doing, but I'm skeptical, mostly because I don't like Webpack's plugin implementation.
You're absolutely right that we can, but the issue is that most teams are too large or too disorganised to share complex codebases, so they choose to do a hard division: splitting the code itself.
Here's an argument that I love: Microservices and microfrontends are (most of the time) a failure of encapsulation [1].
Of course there are other benefits, such as separate deployment processes and ability to use different frameworks.
[1] https://michaelfeathers.silvrback.com/microservices-and-the-...
Maybe that's the reason that I find serverless more promising.
And scalability seems like an incremental benefit at best. If you're cpu bound you can load balance without microservices. And if you're database bound (and have already cached, optimized, and scaled up your db) you can scale up your db to multiple instances. Even Stackoverflow runs their entire infrastructure on just 4 db machines.
There are plenty of problems and challenges with microservices, but that rant makes no sense at all. The blogger does not understand the upside of running separate processes? And then although he presents himself totally oblivious to the problem somehow asserts that "programming languages give us all we need to encapsulate state and environment", claiming that any shortcoming is due to people doing it wrong?
Quite frankly, that article is just a rant devoid of any rational point, and it surprised me how it has been presented as some sort of argument on an entire architecture style.