4 ms·
No we need science and theory to definitively define necessary architectures that are appropriate to certain use cases. An architect is just a another man with
by crimsonalucard 8y ago
No we need science and theory to definitively define necessary architectures that are appropriate to certain use cases.
An architect is just a another man with an opinion.
- johndubchak 8y agoWe have these things. A better architect implies that one is trained in analyzing and producing these architectures using the science she/he was trained with: https://www.sei.cmu.edu/education-outreach/credentials/credential.cfm?customel_datapageid_14047=15203 https://www.sei.cmu.edu/education-outreach/credentials/crede... The certificate means nothing, the training and instruction is priceless. Add to that things like TOGAF and a deep understanding of the current state of existing architectures and you'll understand what I originally meant, but failed to explain. UPDATE: misspelled "meant"
- crimsonalucard 8y agoThat's not science or proof. Thats a course on design. By science and proof I mean like definitive logic. a^2 + b^2 = c^2
- crimsonalucard 8y agoThe closest mathematical formal system I've seen that dictates architecture is category theory. But even this system doesn't say anything about being "better" or more efficient than another design pattern.
- wsy 8y agoIt's a bit like asking to replace medical doctors with science and theory. We need science and theory, and skilled architects who can apply it to the problem at hand.
- crimsonalucard 8y agoThe practices of Doctors are based off of science and theory. Design patterns and microservices while technical are not based off of science. They are ideas without quantitiative basis or science.
- agentultra 8y agoModel checking is based off of mathematics and can be verified or, with some elbow grease, proven. I'll take a TLA+ specification over a diagram any day.
- crimsonalucard 8y agoWhat do you mean by model checking? Usually anything with the keyword "Design" like design patterns for microservices have no science or mathematics to back it up.
- eitally 8y agoYou may be technically correct, but I'd argue it's generally more useful what we do have: practical experience. When one says "we need better architects", to me that implies that our current architects are creating design patterns and reference implementations that are both 1) not practical, and 2) don't adhere to known-good best practices. Systems design in real life is an "artistic science": there are always known limitations (and some expected unknown ones) that rule out the theoretic optimal design for good reasons. The problem is that limitations and compromises are often not disclosed, and that many programmers and architects are too inexperienced to really grok the implicit meaning behind specific design decisions. So we struggle along, with bloggers, researchers and FOSS contributors halfheartedly collaborating to make point improvements as solutions are discovered. Stodgy enterprises suffer, big tech companies make decisions with global impact, startups are left wondering WTF to do, and the rest of us largely don't care. Why? Because nit picking doesn't solve business problems [almost ever. I'd argue this point in cases of things like SCADA systems and other mission critical control systems.].
- 8y ago