I think this is a bit of a stretch. The assertion I took issue with is that "Software architecture probably matters more than anything else". Yes if you want

I think this is a bit of a stretch. The assertion I took issue with is that "Software architecture probably matters more than anything else". Yes if you want to deconstruct the term to the point of absurdity, and say that whatever shape your program ends up in implies some "software architecture" then you can say architecture is always relevant, but I would consider it a stretch to say this means it's also the number-1 priority in software development. If you read my comment, you would see that I'm arguing that software results, and software development as a process matter much more than thinking about architecture. I would also argue that every time the term "architecture" came up in a professional discussion over the past several years, this was a sign we were going down the wrong path.