I clicked through to the article that "ultimately annoyed" the author -- I found it to be a pretty decent, high-level discussion of architecture patterns in the

I clicked through to the article that "ultimately annoyed" the author -- I found it to be a pretty decent, high-level discussion of architecture patterns in the real-world (N-tier, monolith, microservices, event driven, etc). The names may indeed be "25-cent word for a 1-cent idea" but they also allow people to put a shared name to a concept. In reality, very few systems follow a strict set of patterns 100% of the time, but having a shared vocabulary is useful for communication. The friction between "architecture astronauts" and in-the-trenches engineers is nothing new. I think the author has identified the age-old struggles of dealing with Big Design Up Front UML diagrams, overbearing adherence to named patterns, and the disconnect between design and implementation that can happen in any project that has more than one person. I would challenge the author to spend time trying to build up the community rather than tearing down others. Help clarify the "unintuitive names for very simple ideas", be open to new ideas but think critically and share your thoughts. Coming up with a new way to categorize someone as a poser or misguided does neither. (Aside, you may want to consider removing the gendered pronouns from your lists -- there are women engineers and architects of all skill levels. I'm sure there was no malice, but it's worth writing in a way that makes everyone feel included.)