In my opinion, DDD is as pertinent today as ever. The idea that one should strive for an Ubiquitous Language, such that the domain in code is not divorced from the domain as described by the domain experts, will probably remain a good idea for a long time, and it is easier today to focus on the domain first and consider persistence as a "secondary" problem than it used to be. It is also still true that DDD requires an important design effort, and its value is going to be proportional to how complex the domain is.
I have not written any application using the methodology, but I have been reading a lot on Event Sourcing and CQRS lately, and they both seems like a very interesting approach which should fit well with DDD (and are usually advocated by people who are DDD proponents).
I can't find it right now, but there is a video interviews of Eric Evans floating around somewhere on the web,You may be interested in watching this video of Eric Evans, which is a form of retrospective on the methodology a few years after writing the book, and what he would have done differently now.
I think DDD is quite alive (or quite as dead) as before. My opinion is that the "domain" is a hot topic today because of DSLs (Domain-Specific Languages) and MDE (Model-Driven Engineering).
You may want to learn more about a similar "domain-driven" aproach, called DSM - Domain-Specific modeling. In DSM, you can work through patterns but you also define code generators that translate your domain-specific design into working code.
Check the DSM Forum or Wikipedia for more information about DSM.
The two most notable tools right now in this area are MetaEdit+ from MetaCase and AtomWeaver from Isomeris.
发布评论
评论（2）
在我看来，DDD 在今天和以往一样具有现实意义。人们应该努力追求一种通用语言，这样代码中的领域就不会脱离领域专家所描述的领域，这种想法可能会在很长一段时间内仍然是一个好主意，而且今天更容易关注首先将域放在首位，并将持久性视为比以前更“次要”的问题。 DDD 确实需要重要的设计工作，其价值与领域的复杂程度成正比。
我还没有使用该方法编写任何应用程序，但最近我阅读了很多有关事件源和 CQRS 的内容，它们似乎都是一种非常有趣的方法，应该非常适合 DDD（并且通常由 DDD 支持者提倡） ）。
我现在找不到，但网上某个地方流传着 Eric Evans 的视频采访，您可能有兴趣观看埃里克·埃文斯 (Eric Evans) 的这段视频，这是对本书撰写几年后的方法论的回顾，以及他现在会采取的不同做法。In my opinion, DDD is as pertinent today as ever. The idea that one should strive for an Ubiquitous Language, such that the domain in code is not divorced from the domain as described by the domain experts, will probably remain a good idea for a long time, and it is easier today to focus on the domain first and consider persistence as a "secondary" problem than it used to be. It is also still true that DDD requires an important design effort, and its value is going to be proportional to how complex the domain is.
I have not written any application using the methodology, but I have been reading a lot on Event Sourcing and CQRS lately, and they both seems like a very interesting approach which should fit well with DDD (and are usually advocated by people who are DDD proponents).
I can't find it right now, but there is a video interviews of Eric Evans floating around somewhere on the web,You may be interested in watching this video of Eric Evans, which is a form of retrospective on the methodology a few years after writing the book, and what he would have done differently now.我认为 DDD 仍然像以前一样活跃（或者说已经死了）。我的观点是，由于 DSL（领域特定语言）和 MDE（模型驱动工程），“领域”成为当今的热门话题。
您可能想了解有关类似“领域驱动”方法的更多信息，称为 DSM - 特定领域建模。在 DSM 中，您可以使用模式，但您还可以定义代码生成器，将特定于领域的设计转换为工作代码。
有关 DSM 的更多信息，请查看 DSM 论坛或维基百科。
目前该领域最著名的两个工具是 MetaCase 的 MetaEdit+ 和 AtomWeaver 来自 Isomeris。
I think DDD is quite alive (or quite as dead) as before. My opinion is that the "domain" is a hot topic today because of DSLs (Domain-Specific Languages) and MDE (Model-Driven Engineering).
You may want to learn more about a similar "domain-driven" aproach, called DSM - Domain-Specific modeling. In DSM, you can work through patterns but you also define code generators that translate your domain-specific design into working code.
Check the DSM Forum or Wikipedia for more information about DSM.
The two most notable tools right now in this area are MetaEdit+ from MetaCase and AtomWeaver from Isomeris.