3 ms·

I think there is some tribalism at play. Fowler and friends are writing about enterprise architecture. HN is probably more oriented towards startups which haven

by goto11 7y ago

I think there is some tribalism at play. Fowler and friends are writing about enterprise architecture. HN is probably more oriented towards startups which haven't yet reached that kind of challenges and constraints (and in most cases never will), and who feel superior to the dinosaurs. And then there is is the "computer scientists" who think software development should be based on proofs rather than experience and results.

sidlls 7y ago
And then there are people like me. I've worked in big enterprise software departments (a huge homeowners insurance tech company, big banking, government contractors), "companies" of three people including myself, and some in between. Currently I'm at a 500-ish person company that is not quite enterprise but not really a start-up. My experience is that "Enterprise Architecture" creates as many problems for the business as it solves for technology practitioners attempting to solve problems in a huge battle royale of competing departments. I think it often helps cement and provide feedback loops for the causes of the problems seen in large enterprise systems.
- goto11 7y ago
  This is where I get confused. Are you criticizing a particular architecture, or architecture in general? Is it even possible to have a system without an architecture?
  - james_s_tayler 7y ago
    The Winchester Mystery House does exist in software somewhere.
    - JeffGrigg 7y ago
      Even the Winchester Mystery House has architecture. Pretty good architecture. It's still standing, in spite of earthquakes. She bought it in 1884. Now it has some fairly odd "features" based on her very eccentric "requirements." Doors that open into walls. Stairs that "go nowhere." Very expensive windows that look out at brick walls. But given her odd sense of "requirements," it's the house she wanted!
blub 7y ago
The word enterprise is not included in the article, which makes it a generic article about architecture. Experience and results are better then nothing. Where are the author's results? Based on which project experience was the article authored? Without knowing such things, we can't distinguish what kind of outcome will the proposed ideas result in. After all, good results can be good on many dimensions.

by goto11 7y ago

sidlls 7y ago

And then there are people like me. I've worked in big enterprise software departments (a huge homeowners insurance tech company, big banking, government contractors), "companies" of three people including myself, and some in between. Currently I'm at a 500-ish person company that is not quite enterprise but not really a start-up. My experience is that "Enterprise Architecture" creates as many problems for the business as it solves for technology practitioners attempting to solve problems in a huge battle royale of competing departments. I think it often helps cement and provide feedback loops for the causes of the problems seen in large enterprise systems.

goto11 7y ago
This is where I get confused. Are you criticizing a particular architecture, or architecture in general? Is it even possible to have a system without an architecture?
- james_s_tayler 7y ago
  The Winchester Mystery House does exist in software somewhere.
  - JeffGrigg 7y ago
    Even the Winchester Mystery House has architecture. Pretty good architecture. It's still standing, in spite of earthquakes. She bought it in 1884. Now it has some fairly odd "features" based on her very eccentric "requirements." Doors that open into walls. Stairs that "go nowhere." Very expensive windows that look out at brick walls. But given her odd sense of "requirements," it's the house she wanted!

blub 7y ago

The word enterprise is not included in the article, which makes it a generic article about architecture. Experience and results are better then nothing. Where are the author's results? Based on which project experience was the article authored? Without knowing such things, we can't distinguish what kind of outcome will the proposed ideas result in. After all, good results can be good on many dimensions.