Monoliths Aren’t the Enemy: Understanding When a Single Codebase Wins

Not a member? Read it here.

In backend engineering, few debates are as persistent — and as misunderstood — as the one around system architecture. Monolith vs distributed systems. Serverless vs traditional infrastructure. Microservices vs “just ship it.”

The reality is far less ideological than many engineers make it out to be.

You don’t choose an architecture like you pick a framework off a list. You craft it around the problems you’re solving, the team you have, and the constraints you operate under.

And nowhere is this more misunderstood than with monolithic architectures.

There Is No “Correct” Architecture

Before diving into monoliths specifically, it’s important to establish a baseline:

There is no one-size-fits-all backend architecture.

Different teams, companies, and products succeed with radically different approaches. A multimillion-dollar company running a monolith is not “behind” — it’s solving its business problems effectively. And at the end of the day, that’s what matters.

Architecture is not about trends. It’s about trade-offs.

What Is a Monolithic Architecture?

A monolithic architecture is a system where all components of an application — frontend, backend logic, and often even data access — exist within a single unified codebase and deployment unit.

In practice, this often looks like:

• A single repository
• A single deployable service
• Shared runtime and dependencies
• Tight coupling between components

Frameworks that combine frontend and backend logic (such as full-stack frameworks) are modern examples of monolithic thinking: everything lives and evolves together.

You can think of it as one large “engine” handling all responsibilities instead of many smaller, specialized services.

Why Monoliths Work (Especially Early On)

Despite the industry’s obsession with microservices and distributed systems, most successful products start as monoliths — and for good reason.

1. Simplicity

Everything lives in one place:

• Development is centralized
• Testing is straightforward
• Deployment is unified

There’s no need to coordinate across services, APIs, or network boundaries. You avoid entire classes of problems (service discovery, inter-service communication, versioning).

This dramatically reduces cognitive overhead.

2. Speed of Development

Monoliths optimize for iteration speed.

When your entire team works within the same codebase:

• Shared patterns emerge quickly
• Onboarding is easier
• Features can be implemented end-to-end without cross-service coordination

You’re not orchestrating multiple teams or systems — you’re just building.

3. Consistency

With a monolith:

• One language (usually)
• One set of conventions
• One way of handling requests

There’s no need to manage different communication protocols or service contracts. Everything follows the same execution model, often simple HTTP request → application logic → database.

This uniformity reduces friction and errors.

4. Operational Efficiency (in a Specific Sense)

Monoliths are often easier to scale vertically.

Instead of managing:

• Load balancing
• Service replication
• Distributed state

You can often just:

• Add more CPU
• Add more memory
• Run a larger instance

This doesn’t mean monoliths are always more performant — but they can be operationally simpler, especially at moderate scale.

Where Monoliths Start to Break Down

Monoliths are not inherently flawed — but they do introduce constraints as systems grow.

1. Limited Scalability (Granularity Problem)

You can’t scale parts independently.

If one component becomes resource-intensive (e.g., rendering or heavy computation), you must scale the entire application — even if the rest doesn’t need it.

This leads to inefficiency at scale.

2. Reduced Flexibility

A small change can require redeploying the entire system.

Even worse:

• A change in one module can unintentionally impact others
• Full regression testing becomes necessary
• Release cycles slow down as risk increases

This creates friction, especially in large teams.

3. Growing Complexity Over Time

Monoliths don’t stay simple forever.

After a few years, they often evolve into:

• Massive codebases
• Mixed design patterns
• Implicit dependencies between components

At that point, understanding impact becomes difficult:

“If I change this, what else breaks?”

Without strong architectural discipline and testing, this becomes a serious liability.

4. Hidden Coupling Risks

Because everything is interconnected, small mistakes can have system-wide consequences.

For example:

• A middleware change affecting all routes
• A missing environment variable breaking production
• A shared utility introducing unexpected side effects

These aren’t theoretical problems — they happen frequently in large monoliths.

The Real Takeaway

Monoliths are not “bad architecture.”

They are:

• Highly effective for early-stage development
• Ideal for small to mid-sized teams
• Powerful when speed and simplicity matter most

But they require:

• Strong internal structure
• Discipline in modular design
• Robust testing practices

And eventually, they may need to evolve.

Architecture Is a Continuum

You don’t have to choose between:

• Monolith
• Microservices
• Serverless

You can combine them.

You can evolve from one to another.

You can even run hybrid systems where:

• Core logic lives in a monolith
• Specific workloads are distributed

The goal is not architectural purity.

The goal is solving real problems effectively.

If your system works, scales appropriately, and enables your team to deliver value — your architecture is doing its job.