When we design and build applications, the focus tends to be on meeting the immediate business goal — the feature set that delivers visible results. Yet the real test of an application’s quality is not whether it meets today’s requirements, but how well it can adapt to tomorrow’s insights.
Every business domain evolves. Even with the best analysts, no one fully understands the problem space at the start. Knowledge is gained gradually — through real-world use, new insights, and deeper understanding of cause and effect.
Adaptability is therefore not a luxury; it’s the only way an application can continue to serve its business purpose over time.
1. The Case for Adaptability
If learning is continuous, then software must be refactorable by design. Every piece of logic should live where it conceptually belongs. This is what allows developers — and the organization — to evolve understanding without friction.
When logic is scattered across procedural pipelines or abstracted behind generic “service” calls, the mapping between code and domain understanding erodes. The next person who tries to adapt the software faces an archaeological dig instead of an engineering task.
True adaptability means:
when understanding changes,
the corresponding code is easy to locate,
easy to reason about,
and easy to modify safely.
2. How We Lost That Focus
In the industry’s rush for speed and productivity, we’ve built entire methodologies around coping mechanisms for poor domain understanding.
Frameworks, layers, patterns, pipelines — all promising clarity but often adding indirection.
Approaches like TDD, microservices, or function-based decomposition often create the illusion of structure. They optimize local correctness (“does this unit work?”) rather than global comprehension (“why does this concept exist?”).
This shift from understanding the domain to managing complexity is where most systems go wrong.
Complexity itself isn’t the problem — misaligned complexity is.
3. Why Rich Domain Models Are the Missing Foundation
A rich domain model represents the business’s structure and behavior directly. It doesn’t bury logic in framework glue or utility classes. It treats meaning — entities, relationships, and rules — as first-class citizens.
This preserves semantic integrity.
When something changes in the business — a rule, a flow, a constraint — the model contains the natural place to change it.
The result:
logic is traceable,
the “why” is obvious from reading the code,
and each modification strengthens the model instead of eroding it.
A rich domain model reduces entropy because context is never lost.
4. Procedural, Functional, and the Vibe-Coding Trap
Procedural and functional approaches focus on behavior rather than meaning. The system becomes a set of transformations — inputs, outputs, pipelines — but with no conceptual center of gravity.
Vibe coding (“write whatever works right now”) amplifies this. It’s fast when teams are inexperienced because they can produce visible progress without deep domain insight.
But the price comes later: fragmentation, duplication, and an inability to safely refactor.
Without a domain model, logic doesn’t accumulate into understanding. It accumulates into entropy.
4.5 Microservices: The Band-Aid That Deepens the Wound
Microservices emerged as a supposed fix for the scaling problems of large procedural systems.
But splitting a procedural codebase into services doesn’t create boundaries of meaning — only boundaries of communication.
You lose compile-time validation; common business rules become invisible; and every interface hardens into a constraint that resists change.
Adapting to new business insights becomes expensive:
renegotiating contracts,
coordinating deployments,
adjusting orchestration,
debugging distributed failure modes.
Microservices turn a lack of conceptual oversight into a network problem.
They don’t remove complexity; they just push it outward.
Meanwhile, a well-structured domain model in a modular monolith retains clarity, adaptability, and far lower long-term cost.
5. The Role of Testing: What, Not How
Testing is essential — but only when aligned to the right goal.
The purpose of testing is to validate what the system does, not how it does it.
In procedural or function-heavy systems, tests must defensively verify delegation chains:
Does this function call the right helper?
Does this service route to the correct other service?
This is necessary only because the architecture lacks coherence.
In a rich domain model, tests validate domain behavior — not plumbing.
This leads to fewer tests with higher semantic value.
The tests describe the business rules, not the mechanics of how objects collaborate.
This makes refactoring safe rather than fragile.
6. The Real Cost of Misalignment
Across industry data, maintenance and refactoring dominate total software cost — often 5–10× the initial development effort in procedural or functional systems.
Why?
Because logic is scattered, duplicated, or abstracted away from its meaning.
Rich domain models invert this curve.
Because the code accurately mirrors the business concepts, refactoring becomes constrained, localized, and predictable.
Maintenance drops dramatically — sometimes to 5–10% of initial development.
This also correlates with reduced code volume.
A rich domain model frequently requires one-third the lines of code of its procedural or functional equivalent.
Fewer moving parts → fewer bugs → lower cognitive load → safer change.
7. Reclaiming the Core of Software Engineering
Software engineering is not about tools, frameworks, or patterns.
It is about modelling understanding.
A bridge engineer doesn’t obsess over the brand of concrete mixer — they model forces and stresses.
A software engineer must model domain concepts, rules, and relationships.
When this is done well, adaptability emerges naturally.
When it’s missing, every change becomes a fight against the system itself.
Much of modern practice — TDD, vibe coding, microservices, overlayered architectures — is a coping mechanism for the absence of conceptual modeling.
We’ve optimized for short-term visible progress rather than long-term sustainable clarity.
8. The Way Forward
We don’t need new frameworks or methodologies.
We need to return to the essence of engineering: represent the business faithfully and transparently in code.
This requires skill — conceptual thinking, not just tool proficiency.
But a team doesn’t need to be full of experts: one strong domain modeler can guide the rest.
Once meaning is captured in the model, everything else becomes simpler:
testing, refactoring, scaling, onboarding, debugging.
Applications built on understanding remain adaptable.
Those built on expedience eventually collapse under their own weight.
Top comments (0)