4 ms·

I have been thinking about starting some form of discussion group especially for these type of discussions. I work as a CTO / freelance architect and pick up th

I have been thinking about starting some form of discussion group especially for these type of discussions. I work as a CTO / freelance architect and pick up this kind of feedback quite often. StackOverflow is perfect for programming questions but when dealing with architecture discussions a more face to face, back and forth discussion is required IMO.

lucakiebel 4y ago
I also feel that the questions would be too open ended for the stackexchange model
- michaelanckaert 4y ago
  And also not suitable for the “correct answer” model on SO. Two architectures can be equally correct but with a different set of trade offs.
zerkten 4y ago
They have tried to split out the Software Engineering Stack Exchange site for this per the reply at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124867/where-should-i-ask-software-architecture-design-questions https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124867/where-should.... As you note, these discussions are more complex than just a question and answer. I'm curious how often you find that people get actionable information from outside that they couldn't have discovered with better introspection or understanding of the basics. I'm in a similar role and find that people want validation of working systems due to some new person casting shade, have a desire for more exotic technology, or just want people to shoot the breeze with peers on these topics. The answers to their actual problems are often staring them in the face, but are too mundane or boring to accept. Given the pressure to deliver, they'd be better off focusing on the basics for their stakeholders which is the place I try to get them to.
- mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
  I think a rational discussion of an architecture issue shouldn't discuss specific programming languages/frameworks or options of exotic tech. It should be at a much higher level because those things mostly aren't relevant. If the discussion leads to "XYZ message thing behaves this way, how do you ..." that is more of an implementation/programming discussion and not architecture.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ankur- 4y ago
You also get ten different opinions when talking to ten different architects. I agree that having a bit more involved discussion will lead to a more informed opinion. From my experience of working as an architect for more than a decade, finding someone with domain knowledge would help a lot if depth is important. A generalist can help validate the design decisions at a high level or suggest alternatives when appropriate.
- greggyb 4y ago
  I would love to get ten different opinions or approaches on topics such as this. Ultimately, I need to make decisions for my product and my company on my own, but more inputs will allow me to evaluate more options and make a better choice ultimately.
ensemblehq 4y ago
I’m happy to support the group if you do start something. I’ve been thinking of starting a group as well.

lucakiebel 4y ago

I also feel that the questions would be too open ended for the stackexchange model

michaelanckaert 4y ago
And also not suitable for the “correct answer” model on SO. Two architectures can be equally correct but with a different set of trade offs.

zerkten 4y ago

They have tried to split out the Software Engineering Stack Exchange site for this per the reply at https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124867/where-should-i-ask-software-architecture-design-questions https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/124867/where-should.... As you note, these discussions are more complex than just a question and answer. I'm curious how often you find that people get actionable information from outside that they couldn't have discovered with better introspection or understanding of the basics. I'm in a similar role and find that people want validation of working systems due to some new person casting shade, have a desire for more exotic technology, or just want people to shoot the breeze with peers on these topics. The answers to their actual problems are often staring them in the face, but are too mundane or boring to accept. Given the pressure to deliver, they'd be better off focusing on the basics for their stakeholders which is the place I try to get them to.

mattbrewsbytes 4y ago
I think a rational discussion of an architecture issue shouldn't discuss specific programming languages/frameworks or options of exotic tech. It should be at a much higher level because those things mostly aren't relevant. If the discussion leads to "XYZ message thing behaves this way, how do you ..." that is more of an implementation/programming discussion and not architecture.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ankur- 4y ago

You also get ten different opinions when talking to ten different architects. I agree that having a bit more involved discussion will lead to a more informed opinion. From my experience of working as an architect for more than a decade, finding someone with domain knowledge would help a lot if depth is important. A generalist can help validate the design decisions at a high level or suggest alternatives when appropriate.

greggyb 4y ago
I would love to get ten different opinions or approaches on topics such as this. Ultimately, I need to make decisions for my product and my company on my own, but more inputs will allow me to evaluate more options and make a better choice ultimately.

ensemblehq 4y ago

I’m happy to support the group if you do start something. I’ve been thinking of starting a group as well.