Ttyjfyk

Another way of asking this is; why do programs tend to be monolithic?

I am thinking of something like an animation package like Maya, which people use for various different workflows.

If the animation and modelling capabilities were split into their own separate application and developed separately, with files being passed between them, would they not be easier to maintain?

Yes. Generally 2 smaller less complex applications are much easier to maintain than a single large one.

However. You get a new type of bug when the applications all work together to achieve a goal. In order to get them to work together they have to exchange messages and this Orchestration can go wrong in various ways, even though every app might function perfectly. Having a million tiny apps has its own special problems.

A monolithic app is really the default option you end up with when you add more and more features to a single application. It's the easiest approach when you consider each feature on its own. Its only once it has grown large that you can look at the whole and say "you know what, this would work better if we separated out X and Y"

Does splitting a potentially monolithic application into several smaller ones help prevent bugs

Things are seldom that simple in reality.

Splitting up does definitely not help to prevent those bugs in the first place. It can sometimes help to debug them faster. An application which consists of small, isolated components may allow more individual (kind of "unit"-) tests for those components, which can make it sometimes easier to spot the root cause of certain bugs, and so allow it to fix them faster.

However,

• even an application which appears to be monolithic from the outside may consist of a lot unit-testable components inside, so unit testing is not necessarily harder for a monolithic app




• as Ewan already mentioned, the interaction of several components introduce additional risks and bugs

This depends also a lot on how well a larger app can split up into components, and how broad the interfaces between the components are.

So this is often a trade-off, and nothing where a "yes" or "no" answer is correct in general.

why do programs tend to be monolithic

Do they? Look around you, there are gazillions of Web apps in the world which don't look very monolithic to me, quite the opposite. There are also a lot of programs available which provide a plugin model (AFAIK even the Maya software you mentioned does).

would they not be easier to maintain

"Easier maintenance" here often comes from the fact that different parts of an application can be developed more easily by different teams, so better distributed workload, specialized teams with clearer focus, and on.

Easier to maintain once you've finished splitting them, yes. But splitting them is not always easy. Trying to split off a piece of a program into a reusable library reveals where the original developers failed to think about where the seams should be. If one part of the application is reaching deep into another part of the application, it can be difficult to fix. Ripping the seams forces you to define the internal APIs more clearly, and this is what ultimately makes the code base easier to maintain. Reusability and maintainability are both products of well defined seams.

It's important to remember that correlation is not causation.

Building a large monolith and then splitting it up into several small parts may or may not lead to a good design. (It can improve the design, but it isn't guaranteed to.)

But a good design often leads to a system being built as several small parts rather than a large monolith. (A monolith can be the best design, it's just much less likely to be.)

Why are small parts better? Because they're easier to reason about. And if it's easy to reason about correctness, you're more likely to get a correct result.

To quote C.A.R. Hoare:

There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.

If that's the case, why would anyone build an unnecessarily complicated or monolithic solution? Hoare provides the answer in the very next sentence:

The first method is far more difficult.

And later in the same source (the 1980 Turing Award Lecture):

The price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity. It is a price which the very rich find most hard to pay.

I'll have to disagree with the majority on this one. Splitting up an application into two separate ones does not in itself make the code any easier to maintain or reason about.

Separating code into two executables just changes the physical structure of the code, but that's not what is important. What decides how complex an application is, is how tightly coupled the different parts that make it up are. This is not a physical property, but a logical one.

You can have a monolithic application that has a clear separation of different concerns and simple interfaces. You can have a microservice architecture that relies on implementation details of other microservices and is tightly coupled with all others.

What is true is that the process of how to split up one large application into smaller ones, is very helpful when trying to establish clear interfaces and requirements for each part. In DDD speak that would be coming up with your bounded contexts. But whether you then create lots of tiny applications or one large one that has the same logical structure is more of a technical decision.