8 ms·
> I call BS on dogmatic rules like that. Good architecture is analysing the requirements at hand and explicitly articulating and weighting the trade-offs. This
by idolaspecus 6y ago
> I call BS on dogmatic rules like that. Good architecture is analysing the requirements at hand and explicitly articulating and weighting the trade-offs.
This is quite the straw-man argument. For example, the section [1] whose title you quoted explicitly calls out the need to perform an evaluation first:
> When functionality is required, existing IT assets in the organization must be evaluated and used first, unless they do not exist and/or are a significant mismatch to the required functionality.
The "book" is clearly a draft-quality rough collection of notes, many of which are not fleshed out extensively, but it's quite unfair to consider it as a set of "dogmatic rules".
[1] https://nocomplexity.com/documents/arplaybook/businessarchitecture.html#reuse-before-buy-buy-before-build https://nocomplexity.com/documents/arplaybook/businessarchit...
- hcarvalhoalves 6y ago> When functionality is required, existing IT assets in the organization must be evaluated and used first (...) Why must be evaluated and used first? Will I even have time to evaluate? What am I optimising for? Rules like "do this, do that", departed from the actual problems and the constraints, are by definition ignoring 100% of the data - that's why I call it dogmatic. I would appreciate more if it at least supported these claims w/ examples or links to studies, but it doesn't.
- idolaspecus 6y agoI guess I agree the word "must" is maybe too far, but I'd hardly go so far as to say it satisfies the requirements for "dogmatic BS".