2 ms·
We 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: h
by johndubchak 8y ago
We 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.