3 ms·

"I'm at the point where I'm serioulsly debating writing something more substantial on how actual software design works" It's probably already been written; see

"I'm at the point where I'm serioulsly debating writing something more substantial on how actual software design works" It's probably already been written; see the "Big Ball of Mud": http://www.laputan.org/mud/mud.html http://www.laputan.org/mud/mud.html

jammygit 7y ago
> While much attention has been focused on high-level software architectural patterns, what is, in effect, the de-facto standard software architecture is seldom discussed. This paper examines this most frequently deployed of software architectures: the BIG BALL OF MUD. A BIG BALL OF MUD is a casually, even haphazardly, structured system. Its organization, if one can call it that, is dictated more by expediency than design. Yet, its enduring popularity cannot merely be indicative of a general disregard for architecture. >These patterns explore the forces that encourage the emergence of a BIG BALL OF MUD, and the undeniable effectiveness of this approach to software architecture. What are the people who build them doing right? If more high-minded architectural approaches are to compete, we must understand what the forces that lead to a BIG BALL OF MUD are, and examine alternative ways to resolve them. Interesting!