Comparison of Modern Software Architectures

A good architecture is simple, robust, and designed to be easily maintainable and extensible, with a strong focus on proper separation of functionality and well-managed dependencies between components. In addition, architectures should be adaptable to change and enable a fast response to new requirements and opportunities.

Modern approaches to custom software design emphasize addressing the specific needs and requirements of each client. These approaches focus on close collaboration with the customer and gaining a deeper understanding of their goals. In this way, a software project becomes an adaptable and effective tool tailored to the client.

When we look at traditional architectures, the monolithic architecture has long dominated, where the entire application is developed and deployed as a single unit. This approach has its advantages, such as simplicity in development and deployment, but also several drawbacks, including slower development speed and poor scalability. Today, we will explore how this architecture can be extended and evolved.

Infrastructure Management

Serverless Architecture

• Simplifies development by allowing developers to write and deploy code without managing infrastructure.
• All infrastructure management and scaling are handled by the cloud provider.
• This enables developers to focus solely on writing code while maintaining high availability and scalability.

Container-Based Architecture

• Containers allow developers to create isolated runtime environments for applications.
• Each container includes only the necessary dependencies and runtime components, reducing application size and simplifying management.

Source Code Organization

Polyrepo

• An architecture where each project has its own repository.
• Ideal for projects with many independent parts that can be developed and updated separately.
• Each team or developer works in their own repository independently of others.
• Polyrepo also simplifies versioning management, as changes are tracked separately per repository.

Monorepo

• An architecture where all projects are stored in a single repository.
• Suitable for projects that share common parts and code.
• A change in one part can affect others, as everything is connected.
• Monorepo makes code sharing between teams easier and helps solve version compatibility issues.

Backend

SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture)

• Focuses on dividing software functionality into separate services.
• These services are available to other applications that can consume them.
• Each service is designed to be as independent as possible, enabling easy replacement or updates without modifying the entire application.

EDA (Event-Driven Architecture)

• Enables applications to react to events in real time.
• Complements service-oriented architectures, as services can be triggered by incoming events.
• Any state change in the application can generate an event that triggers actions elsewhere.
• This enables highly reactive software and significantly reduces timing dependencies between components.

Monolithic Architecture

• Combines all components into a single unit, simplifying early-stage development and deployment.
• Development simplicity is an advantage, as everything exists within one module.
• However, as the application grows, dependency management becomes more complex.
• Poor scalability arises over time, since changes may impact the entire system, limiting flexibility and slowing deployment.

Microservices

• An increasingly common choice for custom software design.
• Breaks applications into smaller, independent services that can be developed and deployed separately.
• Enables more agile development and deployment.
• Each service can use a different language or database, allowing developers to choose the best tools for each specific service.

Frontend

Component-Based Architecture

• Divides applications into smaller reusable parts (e.g., buttons, calendars, tables).
• Enables faster development and scalability through reuse.
• However, integration and code-sharing between components can still present challenges.

Microfrontends

• Splits an application into independent, isolated sub-applications (e.g., chat, reservation management, accounting dashboards).
• Builds on component architecture and shares similar advantages.
• The key difference is that these sub-applications can be reused across different applications as larger functional units.
• Microfrontends can independently share only the libraries and components they require.
• This approach addresses many traditional frontend challenges such as development speed, scalability, and integration.

Fullstack (Legacy)

MVC (Model-View-Controller)

• Separates data presentation (View), application logic (Controller), and data model (Model).
• Allows changes to one layer without significantly affecting others.
• For example, modifying the data model does not necessarily impact how data is displayed in the UI.

MVVM (Model-View-ViewModel)

• Extends MVC by adding a ViewModel layer that acts as a bridge between the data model and the user interface.
• Improves separation between UI logic and business logic.
• Simplifies testing and maintenance.

Summary

These architectures can also be combined. For example, you may have a service-oriented architecture (SOA) enhanced with reactive (EDA) principles, fully containerized, and connected to a component-based frontend architecture.

Polyrepo is suitable for projects with many independent parts, while Monorepo works well for projects that share common components.

Smaller companies typically start with a monolithic architecture, which gradually evolves into modular structures or individual services and components over time.

Larger applications, often supported by dozens of development teams, usually begin with a defined architecture and build directly on microservices and microfrontends from the start.

Each architecture has its advantages and disadvantages, and the right choice depends on the specific needs and goals of the project. When designing an architecture, it is also crucial to consider the long-term budget and team capacity.

Finally, architectural approaches evolve significantly every few years. While companies try to stay competitive by adopting new trends, many choose the wrong path, increasing technical debt and ending up maintaining incomplete or overly complex solutions.

In such cases, it is always wise to consult with an experienced expert.

We hope this overview helps you better understand the differences between software architectures in custom development. If you would like to explore the topic in more depth or have additional questions, we are here for you.