Clean Architecture IS about Vertical Slicing, actually! 

Absolutely agree. I started to realize that clean architecture is actually more use-case oriented than layer oriented when I really started reading the book and watch the video from Uncle Bob himself. It is very misunderstood by a lot of people that they seem to care more about the layers, coupling all the features into them, mapping out which code should go to which layer, etc. which ironically kills the intention of clean architecture itself. Thanks for clearing things up! I really like your 4 Simple Steps to Implement Clean Architecture video as well.

The problem with focusing your attention on technical concerns rather than solving domain problems is that implemenations tend to become over engineered and over abstracted. Too many devs apply such onion architecture to small projects and completely bloat them to the moon when they good solve their problem with a lot less code. The vertical slice people simply have seen too many poor implementations of onions full of feature coupling hard to update and would hope for people to first learn vertical slicing, write simple solutions and then read clean architecture when they refactor it gradually as it increases in size and scope. Not start out like that.

I like watching someone new to me making their take on software architecture. It's a neverending discussion and you can always learn something. Thank you. I won't be giving my opinion on software architecture, but I want to say that it's hard. With the demand there is for software engineers, many people want just a plain simple guide on how to build software. I believe most SE would really like to build well designed systems, but the reality is it's probably comparable to art. This makes me believe that we either took a wrong path at some point or the evolution of software engineering is too slow.

Thank you. That use-case approach is exactly how I implement the clean architecture for years now. Much better to find your way around a feature and very simple, if you want to transfer a feature to a different project.

That has to be the best call-to-action end segment I've ever seen!

Good job! I tend to use vert slice on major features or classes that are intricate to the project. In land management their are two ways of doing it, lease based or tract based and any other class that is not crucial to those entities are not vert sliced. Ppl forget that the two archs can be used in same solution.

Wow! 11/10 my dude! Way to go!

Around 13:12, you made a reference to CA as a potential advantageous scenario within a software system containing 100k lines of code. However, I believe that this shouldn't be the sole determining factor. In my understanding, the uniqueness of CA lies in the division of the core into two distinct aspects: enterprise-specific (entities) and application-specific (use cases). If there is no compelling reason to integrate your domain with other services or you dont have a rich domain, then these two aspects can already be combined, leading to the likes of hexagonal architecture or just simply the dependency inversion principle. Not that there is much abstraction going on between the two layers but at the very least that one layer is also gone. Besides that, I pretty much agree. I kind of wish that Uncle bob revisisted CA and gave us his modern opinion. Considering he said something along the lines of " clean architecture can have as many layers as you want" but everyone just defaults to his example diagram or some kind of variant mixed up with onion architecture.

Totally agree with all the points mentioned here

thank you

@AboutCleanCode should the different features be separated into different projects, or having different folders suffices?. Most solutions i see have multiple projects per feature but i often think having just separate folders is enough

Great

well thx for sharing, but i dont understand what the point here ? using Clean architecture with vertical slicing architecture is good or not ? or you just point out the misconception theory when some1 compare 2 kinds of architecture ? i want to focus on how to structure project by using clean architecture to ez understand the core business not by technical concern. If i was a member who just join the project, at least i would know which business i have to work with, not by technical concern (too many files, unnecessary seperation code base and so much time to read over project)

I think a big issue of developers, is over engineering stuff. Even more experience one may not notcie but they do it, learning too many concepts, model, framework and so on, trying to following strcitly you end up with this project that you show in the beginning, too complex. By Reading Clean Architecture, it should be something simple, no complex

Clean code arch and VSA are messed up

Well said. So many straw man arguments against clean architecture from people that don't understand it.

You induce a confusion when comparing the two, clean is a layered architecture and a vertical sliced architecture and a ports and adapter architecture and a onion architecture. ISP and DIP lead to more complexity, but it is simple and easy to maintain. And it is a complexity exposed, not hidden behind if-else and switch witch are difficult to read and hard to maintain. The "unecessary complexity" should be defined, because complexity is in the business but also in the context around the feature. Abstraction allow to take cross-cutting concerns into account. User may not need it, but its business certainly does

Is there even one architecture that really works? If I look at enterprise projects then everything is 10 times as complicated and takes 10 times as much time to implement. So clearly its not better~

Words... This makes no sense without code examples of many categories of software.

Just use ruby on rails and stick to it!

Too much c#

everything bob wrote - got misunderstood, just stop reading his books