Summary:<p>1. The term &quot;Monolith&quot; has a bad rep.<p>2. &quot;Majestic Monolith&quot; means eliminating needless abstraction and avoiding
distributing your system (unless unavoidable)<p>3. The term also means writing &quot;beautiful, understandable, and succinct code ... 
that makes us smile when we write it ... and later have to extend or patch it&quot;.<p>4. Everyone has to understand all parts in the &quot;majestic monolith&quot;.<p>5. The &quot;Majestic Monolith&quot; puts pressure on &#x2F; incentivizes programmers to keep the code-base clean.<p>6. Most programmers will rise to the occasion.<p>I think most programmers would agree with the meanings&#x2F;goals ascribed in 2-3 (possibly also 4, if 4 is understood as deeply understanding the structure of your software product), as just generally good rules for building software in general.<p>1, 5, and 6 seem highly subjective to me. I tend to think if you&#x27;re building anything
stringently according to 2-3 you&#x27;d probably be fine and could call that method whatever
you wanted to.<p>There were some interesting ideas in here, regardless of whether or not the argument for the majestic monolith succeeded.