4 ms·

Also, having a solid architectural guideline that is followed across the company in several places (both in infrastructure and application landscapes) makes up

Also, having a solid architectural guideline that is followed across the company in several places (both in infrastructure and application landscapes) makes up the major bulk of insuring stability and usability. The disadvantage is obviously that creating such's a 'perfect architecture' is hard to do because of different concerns by different parties within the company/organisation.

munchbunny 8y ago
> The disadvantage is obviously that creating such's a 'perfect architecture' is hard to do because of different concerns by different parties within the company/organisation. I think you get at two very good points. One is that realistically you will never have enough time to actually get it really right. The other is that once you take real-world tradeoffs into account, you'll have to make compromises that make things messier. But I'd respond that most organizations I see leave a lot of room for improvement on the table before time/tradeoff limitations really become the limiting factor. I've seen architects unable to resolve arguments, engineers getting distracted by sexy technologies/methodologies (microservices), bad requirements gathering, business team originated feature thrashing, technical decisions with obvious anticipated problems...