3 ms·
Despite the provocative title, the author argues for software architecture, just doing it in a manner that suits the organizational culture. He somewhat decrie
by perlgeek 7y ago
Despite the provocative title, the author argues for software architecture, just doing it in a manner that suits the organizational culture.
He somewhat decries traditional software architecture material, which I find off-putting. IMHO the best approach is to be aware of the techniques/patterns/references architectures, and use just the parts that make sense.
- rumanator 7y ago> Despite the provocative title, the author argues for software architecture, just doing it in a manner that suits the organizational culture. The problems demonstrated in the blog post go deeper than (and are not explained by) organizational culture. They convey the idea that the task of designing the architecture of a software system was assigned to inexperience and ignorant developers who, in their turn, decided that they didn't needed to learn the basics of the task, and winging it as they went along would somehow result in a better outcome than anything that the whole software industry ever produced. There is a saying in science/academia that is more or less "a month in the lab saves you hours in the library", which is a snarky remark on how people waste valuable time trying to develop half-baked ideas that match concepts that were already known, thought through, and are readily available if they only put in the time to do a quick bibliographical review. This blog post reads and awful lot like that.
- lensopra 7y agoThe saying in software is "Weeks of coding can save you hours of planning."