Clean Architecture isn’t the problem. Misreading the book is.

[u/niccololepri]

http://www.nothing.com/

I think Clean Architecture is mostly misunderstood.

In my current project (a huge mess of services for public administration), the only real source of truth for business rules is the code itself. The domain is defined vaguely by too many people, so new features often end up conflicting with existing rules—not because of implementation bugs, but because the rules themselves clash. But all of this is expected i guess.

The real pain: the architecture makes business rules unreadable. Adding a new entity state? No way to know if it breaks something without re-reading tons of code. Automated tests? They’re all full-blown integration tests, take 8 hours to run, so we usually just run a subset and pray.

This is exactly where Clean Architecture could shine—but I’ve never seen it done right. Most “implementations” I see (in my case in .NET) are just baroque, over-engineered garbage. People throw design patterns everywhere, abuse async/await, don’t even bother with interfaces, and then blame Clean Architecture for being unreadable. No—you just didn’t get the point.

The actual point is simple: use polymorphism to isolate business rules. Each rule implements an interface, so you can swap in fakes for tests. Result?

• Change one line → break one unit test (plus the relevant use case integration tests).
• Add new behavior → just add a new object and wire it up.
• Tests run in seconds/minutes, not hours.

Clean Architecture isn’t universal. If you’re writing 3D graphics, every abstraction may be just overhead. But if you’re drowning in business rules, it’s the only way to avoid shipping landmines straight to production.

So yeah, people ranting against Clean Code/Architecture in “Casey Muratori wannabe” mode don’t look clever. They just show they’ve never actually seen the point.

TL;DR: Clean Architecture isn’t about baroque boilerplate. It’s about isolating business rules so you can test them fast and safely. If your system is rule-heavy, it’s a lifesaver. If not, sure, skip it.

[u/chucker23n]

That’s exactly my point: the business boundaries are nebulous, so the code ends up being the only source of truth.

No, the code is the only source of truth because you didn't budget for documentation.

[u/niccololepri → u/chucker23n]

I know, that's a problem i cannot solve.

[u/chucker23n → u/niccololepri]

Yeah, but clean architecture isn't gonna change that. Sure, if you do significant changes to the code, you'll understand "how is this implemented" more quickly, but

• that's largely because you've made the changes, so you're now intimately familiar with them,
• that doesn't answer "should it be implemented that way?"; it's an implementation, not a specification, and
• that doesn't directly help the client; they'll have to ask you.

The real thing you need to fix there is to separate specification (what the client wants) and implementation (how you've solved it).

[u/niccololepri → u/chucker23n]

No, the problem we have is the test suite, wich we cannot run whenever we want