> Doesn't seem like you're actually disagreeing then, if systems design can apply just as well to a 'monolith' and it's often the better design.

"Can" and "do" are two different words.

"Monolith" is often a cop out to hide amorphous big-ball-of-mud projects. In fact, the luddite-like movement's aversion to system design is rooted in the fact that it's not necessary, and their irrational aversion to microservices and distributed systems and systems design lies in the fact that, unlike monoliths, they are far less tolerant of hacking together big balls of mud and demand instead some degree of discipline to design a system and comply with the system design.

> unlike monoliths, they are far less tolerant of hacking together big balls of mud and demand instead some degree of discipline to design a system and comply with the system design.

A demand that is often poorly met, leaving one with a distributed ball of mud that is more difficult to reason about and refactor.