> you just need to know each juncture where that strand weaves into other strands.
No I don't, that's what computers are for. It's why static analysis is good. Instead of knowing what calls what, you say, "yo, static analysis tool, what calls this?".
The comment you quoted is talking about the non-monolithic situations where static analysis tools cannot help you, e.g. when the callers are external and difficult to trace.
I don't think so? The full quote that I pulled out a piece of was:
> The monolith crowd claims it's easier to change/rewrite code in a monolith because it's all one big pile of yarn and if you want to change out one strand of it, you just need to know each juncture where that strand weaves into other strands.
I'm saying, in the monolith situation, with proper static analysis tooling - which even languages like python and ruby have nowadays - you don't "need to know" how all the strands weave into the other strands, you rely on the tooling to know for you.
And in my experience, static analysis tooling for navigating across service boundaries is, at the very least, far less mature, if not just entirely non-existent.
No I don't, that's what computers are for. It's why static analysis is good. Instead of knowing what calls what, you say, "yo, static analysis tool, what calls this?".