I'd like to complement that. Defining/Discovering the vocabulary for the Ubiquitous Language along with Bounded Contexts (Strategic Design) is where most benefits come from. And is, as said and I agree, the most difficult part - there are no recipes, shortcuts or tools to do that for you.
It doesn't help that there is a bunch of frameworks, libraries, articles with "DDD" on their name, mindlessly gluing together patterns and segregating them into layers (Building Blocks). What I see happening the most is people using them and complaining. Which they should.
Of the two parts that compose DDD, "Strategic Design" and "Building Blocks", only one is essential: Strategic Design. But people usually just talk about the "Building Blocks" (a.k.a Anemic Models), as it seems to be the case of "stevebmark" comment. I agree with him that just having Anemic Models, following blindly the Building Blocks part of DDD as rule, is bad. I just think that calling it DDD is a mistake. DDD is the Strategic Design, you don't even need the code for it to work or produce value.
It doesn't help that there is a bunch of frameworks, libraries, articles with "DDD" on their name, mindlessly gluing together patterns and segregating them into layers (Building Blocks). What I see happening the most is people using them and complaining. Which they should.
Of the two parts that compose DDD, "Strategic Design" and "Building Blocks", only one is essential: Strategic Design. But people usually just talk about the "Building Blocks" (a.k.a Anemic Models), as it seems to be the case of "stevebmark" comment. I agree with him that just having Anemic Models, following blindly the Building Blocks part of DDD as rule, is bad. I just think that calling it DDD is a mistake. DDD is the Strategic Design, you don't even need the code for it to work or produce value.