No Architecture vs Hexagonal Architecture

Developers should consider No Architecture when working on proof-of-concepts, small internal tools, or projects with highly uncertain requirements where speed and experimentation are critical meets developers should use hexagonal architecture when building complex applications that require high testability, such as enterprise systems or microservices, as it isolates business logic for easier unit testing without external dependencies. Here's our take.

No Architecture

Nice Pick

Developers should consider No Architecture when working on proof-of-concepts, small internal tools, or projects with highly uncertain requirements where speed and experimentation are critical

Pros

• It is useful in hackathons, early-stage startups, or when building disposable code that doesn't require extensive scaling or long-term support
• Related to: agile-development, yagni

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

Hexagonal Architecture

Developers should use Hexagonal Architecture when building complex applications that require high testability, such as enterprise systems or microservices, as it isolates business logic for easier unit testing without external dependencies

Pros

• It is ideal for projects needing to adapt to changing technologies (e
• Related to: domain-driven-design, test-driven-development

Cons

• Specific tradeoffs depend on your use case

The Verdict

These tools serve different purposes. No Architecture is a methodology while Hexagonal Architecture is a concept. We picked No Architecture based on overall popularity, but your choice depends on what you're building.

The Bottom Line

No Architecture wins

Based on overall popularity. No Architecture is more widely used, but Hexagonal Architecture excels in its own space.