We see that Martin Fowler is influenced by Ralph Johnson in deriving for himself a definition of architecture. In particular, there was no objective way to def

We see that Martin Fowler is influenced by Ralph Johnson in deriving for himself a definition of architecture. In particular, there was no objective way to define what was fundamental, or high level And goes on to lean heavily on the idea that ‘application architecture' is a social construct. But I am then left with a thought that if application architecture is a social construct, that means there should be identifiable social characteristics that make-up the application architecture, characteristics that can be further quantified to an acceptable degree, such that they can be defined as fundamental. Taking a step back from Martin’s influence & conclusion, and ask ourselves, “couldn’t software architecture, or architecture in general, be defined by a set of heuristics that lead to objectively defining what is fundamental to a particular context?“ Suppose we create three rules that need to be defined before reaching our conclusion: - context: what scale does the architecture in question reference? - collection of computing elements: what are the computing elements (this can range from machines to software) - connectedness: how are the computing elements connected? For example, in order to determine the architecture of my web scraping local machine setup I would go through the rules: - context: a single script file with code written to accomplish the task - collection: functions that are used to perform the task of scraping the webpage - connectedness: functions pass data to other functions to perform specific tasks of scraping In this example we have a guide to achieve objectively what is fundamental to our architecture.