These are marking buzzwords, not engineering principles:

Code:

Continuous  Integration and Continuous Delivery and Continuous Deployment. (CI/CD)

Here is the problem.


Your post (on this topic, not generally) is one sided. This is normal and often seen when people have "drank the koolaid" and "believe in something" and develop a confirmation bias toward it. This is a fact of life - bias toward things we "believe in".


All good engineers (especially formally trained engineers) know from formal training and experience that every system has engineering trade-offs and it holds true, in general, that when you gain something in a system, you lose something else.


This is a universal truth.


So, all technologies, all systems, have good and bad, costs, benefits, negative and unforeseen consequences. This in an core universal constant. You cannot gain something without losing something.


Sorry to be so blunt, but when anyone, regardless of who they are or how smart or experienced they may be, make sweeping statements about now great something is without at the same time, making statements of the potential downsides - this demonstrates bias, not system engineering expertise or considered analysis.

Code:

Continuous  Integration and Continuous Delivery and Continuous Deployment. (CI/CD)

These are meaningless marking buzzwords designed by the marketing department of companies meant to sell and convince others to spend money.


I have a lot of experience in data centers (decades), and this means a lot of experience with both stand alone servers and cloud services.


While "cloud services" offer numerous benefits, they really do not offer the buzzwords above. To me, those buzzwords are more Orwellian than fact.


For example, if you have an application in a cloud with a lot of legacy code, and the cloud provider upgrades (which they do continuously as the buzzwords suggest) and your legacy code is not upwardly compatible with the upgrade of the service provider, you, the application owner, now have a problem which is driven by the cloud service provider, not by your own requirements, budget and timeline, etc.


This means that none of these buzzwords hold true in one simple test case, in practical terms when a cloud service makes changes to their infrastructure which is at odds with the customers legacy apps:

Code:

Continuous  Integration and Continuous Delivery and Continuous Deployment. (CI/CD)

In this case, these should be:

Code:

Continuous Upgrade Issues and Continuous Dependency and Continuous Trouble.

I can easily go on and on with experienced and well considered engineering trade-off examples and practical situational analysis to show that "cloud" technology has good and bad, value and devalue, and the cost-benefits are situational dependent.


If anyone does not understand this, and does not realize that all systems have positives and negative engineering trades, and tend to present one-sided arguments toward any system or technology, then that person is not yet a true engineer (in the core spirit of what an engineer is), but more of a "believer" or "follower". Engineers, especially system engineers, are not "believers" they are analysts who can see both sides of a system. System engineering know that every system is like the ying and yang system, with good and bad, and they think it looks foolish to espouse the positive without also pointing out the trade-offs.


On my desktop, for example, I have a 12 core Mac Pro. It's a great system (fast, strong, reliable, plenty of head room for all my apps and development IDEs to run); but this round black can puts out so much heat, my electricity bill has gone up. I need more cooling in the room because of it. So, I have to make a decision. Is the increased cost of electricity and heat generated at my desk worth the extra performance I get with 12 cores and 64G of RAM at my desktop? It's a trade-off.


So, now I automatically shut down this 12 core beast every night to reduce heat, which I never had to do with my little Mac Book Air!



Everything is a trade-off. Everything!


Marketeers, salespeople, and "followers" ("believers") tend to always only hype the positives, and hide the trade-offs. This is their job. Many people buy into the hype. Millions of people go out and make a living every day selling ideas. This is a core part of the economy, and without it, there would be less economy (another trade-off - hype does tend to make money and generate business).


This statement:

Code:

Continuous  Integration and Continuous Delivery and Continuous Deployment. (CI/CD)

Is pure "drink the koolaid" marketing buzz, and has nothing to do with sound system engineering analysis or trade-off analysis.


When folks reply to me, especially on broad concepts like this, please present both sides and not a one-sided "I am a believer" reply, because "believing" is really a kind illusion, at least in my viewpoint. Whenever we start to "believe" we start to lose objectivity.


Everything in this world is a trade-off, and everything has good and bad bundled together.


And if I can be so bold to say, it is these "strong beliefs" that people hold dear and near to their heart, which cause a great majority of the worlds problems.


I think I made my point and better stop now because I really go off the rails and start ranting against the current hype around AI !!