4 ms·

The relationship between the architect of a building and its general contractor is no different than it is in software: acrimony, with each thinking the other i

The relationship between the architect of a building and its general contractor is no different than it is in software: acrimony, with each thinking the other is wrong on most fronts. General contractors believe their experience gives them superior insight into how something should be built, and that architects make impossible-to-implement plans. Architects take great care to make precise decisions on hundreds of dimensions, ranging from cost engineering to air quality, aesthetics in the context of then, now, and the life of the built environment, and scoff when plans aren't followed. Somehow, usually, through a lot of bickering and change orders, things turn out alright. The architect absorbs vast information and designs a solution, the builder makes it into reality, often making meaningful and lasting decisions during implementation. Both are competent and valuable. Sure there are design-build people and teams, sometimes they work very well. Architects will always have more context in the realm of ideas, that is the space they occupy. Builders have the most context in implementation, and may detect issues that make the whole plan invalid. Collaboration helps. Mistrust doesn't. Architects don't have to swing a hammer to know where the planks should go, but boy it sure does help if they have.

xMAY 7y ago
I've never seen such an architect in software and I'm surprised this is the top comment here. HN has been taken over by talkers and bullshitters.
qznc 7y ago
As a software architect myself, I agree. It helps to do building. I recently took over the ownership of a small component in our system myself. That was the first time I wrote a unit test in our project. Finally I know how our testing and coverage infrastructure is configured. > The greatest architectures are the product of a single mind or, at least, of a very small, carefully structured team. In a big project, I would rather relief the one or two architects from their coding duties than to have four or more architects. While it helps to do the building, there are more important things for an architect to do. For example, I'm the one who has the overview of cross cutting concerns like logging and safety. Disclaimer: I believe there is a big difference what "software architect" means in IT/cloud/web in contrast to embedded/safety-critical/real-time. Most of the complains I hear are about the IT ones (often called solution architects). The article and also my work is in the later category. The methods are nearly the same, but regulations in the later category force the architects to focus on much more details. Maybe that helps to stay more grounded. We do have a similar acrimony with our "system architects" though.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
No the analogy is bad. The relationship between software architect and software engineer is akin to the relationship between a building engineer and a architect of a building, not the contractor. The architect has some grand high level artistic design or dream. Engineers and contractors turn dreams into reality. Architects have ideas. Engineers and contractors are incapable of high level thinking or having ideas of their own. It's pretty impossible it's like architects are born with it. Sort of like how a CEO is able to have a vision. Engineers don't know how to dream or have visions. It's the job of the architect and CEO to direct us.

xMAY 7y ago

I've never seen such an architect in software and I'm surprised this is the top comment here. HN has been taken over by talkers and bullshitters.

qznc 7y ago

As a software architect myself, I agree. It helps to do building. I recently took over the ownership of a small component in our system myself. That was the first time I wrote a unit test in our project. Finally I know how our testing and coverage infrastructure is configured. > The greatest architectures are the product of a single mind or, at least, of a very small, carefully structured team. In a big project, I would rather relief the one or two architects from their coding duties than to have four or more architects. While it helps to do the building, there are more important things for an architect to do. For example, I'm the one who has the overview of cross cutting concerns like logging and safety. Disclaimer: I believe there is a big difference what "software architect" means in IT/cloud/web in contrast to embedded/safety-critical/real-time. Most of the complains I hear are about the IT ones (often called solution architects). The article and also my work is in the later category. The methods are nearly the same, but regulations in the later category force the architects to focus on much more details. Maybe that helps to stay more grounded. We do have a similar acrimony with our "system architects" though.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

No the analogy is bad. The relationship between software architect and software engineer is akin to the relationship between a building engineer and a architect of a building, not the contractor. The architect has some grand high level artistic design or dream. Engineers and contractors turn dreams into reality. Architects have ideas. Engineers and contractors are incapable of high level thinking or having ideas of their own. It's pretty impossible it's like architects are born with it. Sort of like how a CEO is able to have a vision. Engineers don't know how to dream or have visions. It's the job of the architect and CEO to direct us.