> The world is boring enough as is. Let's add more whimsy and cuteness through our service and project names.
This is a recipe for creating a wholly impenetrable language about your services. Which is easier for an outsider to understand:
"I updated the code for how Batman writes to Goliath in Cair Paravel"
"I updated the code for how the backend services write to the customer database in the billing application."
> I don't want to be the one to advocate for delaying features so we can rename broadcast-service to broadcast-and-new-responsibility-service. That's going to be an unpleasant conversation with your product manager, for good reason: Because this never should have happened, and it's a waste of time to change the name.
What seems to happen more often at the particular Large Company I work for is that not just responsibilities change, but fundamental assumptions underlying the architecture of a system change every few years. So rather than renaming a service, often a new system is put in place that reflects these new assumptions, and this new system will have a new name. The migration then isn't about the new name, it's about the new system, along with the new APIs and model of operation that comes with it. Yes, there are lots of examples of billing systems written 40 years ago in COBOL, but most software systems have a lifecycle on the order of 3-5 years.
This is a recipe for creating a wholly impenetrable language about your services. Which is easier for an outsider to understand:
"I updated the code for how Batman writes to Goliath in Cair Paravel"
"I updated the code for how the backend services write to the customer database in the billing application."
> I don't want to be the one to advocate for delaying features so we can rename broadcast-service to broadcast-and-new-responsibility-service. That's going to be an unpleasant conversation with your product manager, for good reason: Because this never should have happened, and it's a waste of time to change the name.
What seems to happen more often at the particular Large Company I work for is that not just responsibilities change, but fundamental assumptions underlying the architecture of a system change every few years. So rather than renaming a service, often a new system is put in place that reflects these new assumptions, and this new system will have a new name. The migration then isn't about the new name, it's about the new system, along with the new APIs and model of operation that comes with it. Yes, there are lots of examples of billing systems written 40 years ago in COBOL, but most software systems have a lifecycle on the order of 3-5 years.