5 ms·
Yeah, that's a really good point. There is no "one-size fits all solution" to how an architecture team should be composed (if it should exist at all for a compa
by swquinn 5y ago
Yeah, that's a really good point. There is no "one-size fits all solution" to how an architecture team should be composed (if it should exist at all for a company) nor is there an easy answer for how it should operate.
I really like this though:
> software architecture is about making certain you have as few tools as possible, to do a job, with the flexibility to accommodate other tools, when necessary.
This really resonates--one thing I've noticed is a growing complexity of like-systems and finding ways to reduce unnecessary complexity seems like it could be very beneficial for any organization.
- quantified 5y agoPerhaps another slant that has long seemed apt: choosing the dependencies and steering the organization of the software and its stack. Minimizing the dependencies to those strictly necessary, treating as many as plausible as an implementation detail, and judiciously leveraging the strategic ones, all flow from that.
- relaunched 5y agoif you are thinking in terms of dependencies and a singular "stack", the organization is probably not complex enough for architecture as a function. When you are running 5 different types of messaging queues, including 2 that were grown in-house, you need architecture.
- relaunched 5y agoThanks!