When DDD may be overkill or should be avoided?

 

1) Simple CRUD or data-centric systems

If the core problem is straightforward data storage and retrieval with minimal business rules:

• Admin dashboards

• Basic inventory apps

• Simple reporting tools

DDD adds layers (aggregates, repositories, domain services) without real benefit.

👉 Better fit: Transaction scripts, layered architecture, or even low-code.

---

2) Stable domains with little change

DDD shines when:

• Rules change frequently

• Language evolves

• Domain knowledge deepens

If the domain is mature and unlikely to change (e.g., fixed regulatory forms, static catalogs), DDD’s modeling effort doesn’t pay off.

---

3) Small teams or short-lived projects

DDD requires:

• Shared language

• Modeling workshops

• Ongoing refinement

For:

• 1–2 developers

• Proof-of-concepts

• Hackathons

• MVPs with uncertain future

…the coordination cost exceeds value.

---

4) When the domain complexity is low but technical complexity is high

Example:

• Real-time streaming pipeline

• High-performance compute system

• Infrastructure tooling

Here, the challenge is technical architecture, not domain modeling.
DDD solves the wrong problem.

---

5) CRUD over a well-understood schema

If the system mostly mirrors a database or external schema:

• ERP extensions

• Data entry portals

• ETL staging apps

DDD entities become thin wrappers over tables → unnecessary abstraction.

---

6) When the organization lacks domain collaboration

DDD depends on:

• Domain experts

• Ubiquitous language

• Iterative modeling

If stakeholders are unavailable or knowledge is fragmented, DDD collapses into guesswork and ceremony.

---

7) Premature microservices / bounded contexts

A common anti-pattern:

“We’ll do DDD → bounded contexts → microservices”

For small systems this creates:

• Distributed complexity

• Integration overhead

• Deployment burden

DDD does not require microservices — but is often misused to justify them.

---

8) Performance-critical tight loops

DDD object graphs, aggregates, and invariants can add:

• Allocation overhead

• Indirection

• ORM complexity

In high-frequency trading, simulation engines, or embedded systems, simpler data-oriented design is superior.

---

Practical rule of thumb

DDD is justified when all three are true:

• Domain complexity is high

• Domain knowledge is evolving

• Business rules drive architecture

If any of these are missing → reconsider DDD.

---

Common signs you’re over-engineering with DDD

• Entities with no behavior

• Repositories that just wrap ORM

• Aggregates = database tables

• Excessive value objects for primitives

• Services passing DTOs everywhere

• More modeling than coding

---

When to use instead of DDD

Situation	Better approach
Simple CRUD	Transaction script
Data pipelines	Data-oriented design
MVP	Clean architecture lite
UI-heavy apps	MVC / MVVM
Static schemas	Anemic model
Infra systems	Procedural / functional

---

Bottom line

DDD is a strategic modeling approach, not a default architecture.
Use it when the business domain is the hardest part of the system —
avoid it when the system is mainly data, UI, or technical plumbing.