I think there’s a large disservice in comparing architecture and construction in the real world to software. Software is more like keeping quicksand in your ha

I think there’s a large disservice in comparing architecture and construction in the real world to software. Software is more like keeping quicksand in your hands. The construction of houses take mature engineering principles and calculations of a physical world to create buildings standing for centuries. Most (not all) changes after construction is veneer - on the surface and replacing of bits 1:1. Software on the other hand need constant attention and massive changes to the very foundation is not uncommon. It might go as deep as a change in hardware, say moving from one arch to another, or changing of the software architecture such as moving to a distributed, eventually consistent persistence layer or vice versa. It’s not like concrete stops functioning if you don’t keep touching it either. Don’t get me started on build pipelines, testing, integrations etc etc And next up: product! Yesterday we thought it was a new empire state building buuuut it turned out we need to build a modern day coliseum. Followed by “project management” - this may be the most obvious sign that we’re off in comparison. A building need project management! Software on the other hand is often ruined by it, as software is supposed to be malleable. One is soft, the other is hard. Trying to liken software production to building construction is something I’ve seen create various problems in this field of ours for a long time.