3 ms·
ooohhh this one actually does bother me sometimes. Probably not for the same reason though. We've had a few guys proclaim themselves as "Software Architects"
by lujim 11y ago
ooohhh this one actually does bother me sometimes. Probably not for the same reason though. We've had a few guys proclaim themselves as "Software Architects" after just a few years of bug fixing. They seem to do it to distinguish themselves from the rest of the less gifted masses. One of our guys with the same level of experience as everyone else couldn't be bothered with scripting all of his database schema changes (which was a boring and tedious task because of how we managed changes at the time, and he didn't bother to keep track of them as he made them) because he was an "Architecture guy". A title that he gave himself and was in no way reflected on his resume.
If there are Software Architects they are very senior and experienced and hired into a position that asked for a Software Architect. They design entire systems not just a page here or there.
- ino 11y agoIt's clear people are using software architect due to the prestige the name brings.
- pluma 11y agoIf you have ever dealt with actual architects it should be obvious there isn't anything prestigious about architecture. Sure, a small handful of elites gets to plan really cool projects but the same is true for most industries -- everybody else just does boring grunt work. The reason they call themselves software architects is that they're mostly working on software architecture. Granted, the title is overused because scantly few companies have the scale at which it makes sense having a dedicated person for that but I've seen plenty of "art directors" prettying up PowerPoint slides, too. The problem isn't that there is no such thing as "software architecture", the problem is that it's usually not useful to extract it into a separate role (although that doesn't stop people from trying), making the title more ceremonial than descriptive.