Sorry, never saw your response. Agree, and often argue that architects should pay more attention to the fastpaced and generative lessons of software languages,

Sorry, never saw your response. Agree, and often argue that architects should pay more attention to the fastpaced and generative lessons of software languages, processes and businesses. We should see architecture as less finished, because it rarely is. It always changes, it degrades, the business changes, the family changes, the city changes around it, it breaks it gets extended or fitout or rebuilt, and architects are only sometimes involved (rarely the same architects). But just because architecture is slower (much slower), it doesn't mean it doesn't contain many of the same issues and challenges. But architecture as a process, the challenges of clients, user interface, communication in building or use, business interface, cost and time control, and not least the incremental effect of degradation and specialisation disintegrating the profession etc.. these have been well documented in our profession and are being experienced anew in software. I love the garden analogy, architecture should also be more like gardens! We have this misunderstanding that architecture is permanent, but really it is just slow. Trees are nice, but we also need perennials and vegetables.. and mulch.