5 ms·
In general, CS (the science) does not often concern itself with the kind of architecture decisions day-to-day programmers deal with. Instead, the field tends t
by einarvollset 9y ago
In general, CS (the science) does not often concern itself with the kind of architecture decisions day-to-day programmers deal with.
Instead, the field tends to offer architecture advice in particularly hairy areas (DB design, distributed FT consensus, etc).
In my opinion, that’s how it should be - the goals of academics are very different to those shipping code in the real world. A great developer will be aware of when to turn to academia and when to turn to industry best practice - too often developers are not aware that they are wondering into a hairy area, and end up re-inventing flawed and inefficient versions that are well understood.
- drharby 9y agoThat last line of yours is so very true. Whenever i find myself going down the rabbit hole i pick up the nearest relevant academic text and just speedread the relevant chapter to tailor my search doe relevant readymade solutions. Developer life is like googlefu xtreme edition
- capkutay 9y agoi was going to make a similar comment but this sums it up very well. CS papers work best when dealing with very specific, nitty gritty areas that require research after defining a hypothesis or problem to solve. 'Software architecture' is fairly broad and papers on those topics would read more like sociology papers than CS papers (e.g. how do people write code? here are some examples, here are some general patterns people like etc). Looking back on reading that sort of stuff, it was nice but I very rarely apply it in day to day software development compared to readings that are more niche to the problem I'm solving that week.