I've been involved in the European DDD community from the start, sparked the initial IDDD tour with Vaughn Vernon, and am still highly involved, so you could say I know a thing or two about DDD, and I consider the patterns most people think about when being introduced to DDD a bit similar to the inheritance part of Object orientation: it's pars pro toto and you are probably missing out on the valuable part of DDD:<p>First: DDD will not magically fix all your problems; however, it does ask the right questions: what is your common language, how does your code align with your organisation, what are the boundaries and the relationship between boundaries, what is your core domain and where might it make more sense to buy something existing etc... So while it is not the silver bullet, it might help you to pinpoint some typical issues with your current code base.<p>Second, people new to DDD tend to focus on tactical patterns and things like CQRS etc, which might be interesting but it's usually way less important than the strategic part of DDD.<p>Third, it also attempts to define nomenclature for developers, f.e. about responsibilities and granularities: aggregate roots, bounded contexts, commands, events etc...<p>Like every other methodology there is some cargo culting going on, and that is also the reason I decided to spend a few years outside the echo chamber. However, now that I'm back it's great to see how the methodology is maturing and the community trends to attract the right kind of people.<p>TL;DR: DDD can be useful, but don't blindly start applying tactical DDD patterns everywhere without understanding the bigger picture; this will only work against you.<p>Edit: some line breaks