Thank you for sharing this article. I enjoyed it and completely agree that investing time to organize code structure is essential and will pay big dividends as projects grow and mature.

"A place for everything, and everything in its place."

I'd like to ask you to consider a small terminology tweak, if I may. I hope you will find this suggestion helpful or at least thought-provoking. The term in question is "architecture".

About ten years ago, it occurred to me that I consider architecture to be an activity rather than a characteristic, i.e. more a verb than a noun.

To me, architecture is "The creation and consistent application of proven solutions to design requirements and problems within a given domain." (my definition).

I contend that good architects do not create architecture(s) or information systems with architecture(s); they create and consistently apply proven solutions in the information systems they design. This activity is architecture.

Doing this depends on two basic questions that all good architects are compelled to ask: what is this, and where should it go?

The first is an ontological question -- what is this really, when we strip away all the fluff, and what makes it itself and not something else? The second is all about taxonomy -- now that we understand what this really is, where should we place it in a structure, like your code structure template, so that we derive the most benefit from it and the ways it relates to other things in the system?

Based on the three Vitruvian characteristics: utilitatis (utility), firmitatis (durability), and venustatis (delight or beauty), architects identify, select, and consistently apply proven solutions in their work.

If interested, you can read more about this in my article "Defining Architecture". Have a great day!

https://frickingruvin.medium.com/defining-architecture-edcb334d5cbb