3 ms·

I always find it bizarre how people like this can operate. After almost 20 years of software development, I've considered seeking some kind of an architect rol

I always find it bizarre how people like this can operate. After almost 20 years of software development, I've considered seeking some kind of an architect role, but I cannot, for the life of me, imagine operating as one without working closely and collaboratively with the development team on a solution, rather than just dictating how things should be done "from on high". But that may just be a personality thing, I don't know.

t43562 3y ago
"real architects" write code and simply hop from one team to the other so that they have a reasonable picture of the overall system and can try to guide all the teams to make harmonious choices and possibly even reach some goal. This still results in a lot of compromises and problems. Anyhow they should be there talking to the developers in a 2-way fashion so that then end result is not entirely "from on high".
- pydry 3y ago
  I haven't ever seen one of them. IME architects tend to be people who tell your team that you should be using Azure Cosmos after a Microsoft salesman takes them out to lunch. They last coded 5 years ago.
  - jbmsf 3y ago
    They exist - I am one - but it doesn't work unless your leadership wants someone who doesn't fit in existing hierarchies. I tend to consult and if I go somewhere where I have prior relationships with leadership, it works. If not, I get treated as part of someone's narrow reporting chain and all the incentives are wrong.
- noirbot 3y ago
  I've seen this even without the code - them just bouncing between teams and sitting in on many meetings and sort of being the common note-taker who then knows where almost every team is going, what they need, and what cross-team work could be done to improve everyone's life.
intelVISA 3y ago
> I always find it bizarre how people like this can operate. They are acting rationally within their belief system of making money. Enterprise software is exactly that, software used by enterprise -- it doesn't signify any good qualities (far from it) only that it provides a cost-effective software solution to a defined business need. The issue is when corps get bailed out, overfunded, or have revenue mostly outside of software (e.g. gov't contracts) as it eliminates cost-effective from the equation... so you just end up with buggy messes (code as a cost center). You'd have to work in the tiny niches where tech is the true product to find good development ...and even then...

t43562 3y ago

"real architects" write code and simply hop from one team to the other so that they have a reasonable picture of the overall system and can try to guide all the teams to make harmonious choices and possibly even reach some goal. This still results in a lot of compromises and problems. Anyhow they should be there talking to the developers in a 2-way fashion so that then end result is not entirely "from on high".

pydry 3y ago
I haven't ever seen one of them. IME architects tend to be people who tell your team that you should be using Azure Cosmos after a Microsoft salesman takes them out to lunch. They last coded 5 years ago.
- jbmsf 3y ago
  They exist - I am one - but it doesn't work unless your leadership wants someone who doesn't fit in existing hierarchies. I tend to consult and if I go somewhere where I have prior relationships with leadership, it works. If not, I get treated as part of someone's narrow reporting chain and all the incentives are wrong.
noirbot 3y ago
I've seen this even without the code - them just bouncing between teams and sitting in on many meetings and sort of being the common note-taker who then knows where almost every team is going, what they need, and what cross-team work could be done to improve everyone's life.

intelVISA 3y ago

> I always find it bizarre how people like this can operate. They are acting rationally within their belief system of making money. Enterprise software is exactly that, software used by enterprise -- it doesn't signify any good qualities (far from it) only that it provides a cost-effective software solution to a defined business need. The issue is when corps get bailed out, overfunded, or have revenue mostly outside of software (e.g. gov't contracts) as it eliminates cost-effective from the equation... so you just end up with buggy messes (code as a cost center). You'd have to work in the tiny niches where tech is the true product to find good development ...and even then...