3 ms·

I didn't say it directly, but thanks for the article! My question is probably more asking exactly how/why the visual representation helps. I am very open to t

by taeric 3y ago

I didn't say it directly, but thanks for the article! My question is probably more asking exactly how/why the visual representation helps. I am very open to the idea that they do. But I'm also open to the idea that it is the active interaction with others that is the important part. That it is done with text or with drawings feels secondary. Almost distantly. Your point about the really high level views of 1 and 2 in the levels feels notable. I also really resonate with the idea of identifying the deployable "things" that can be independently reasoned about. If you have a team that is pushing libraries between the two things, you then have to expand this discussion to the build and deploy systems as being integral to your team, not merely secondary considerations.

ewi_ 3y ago
I believe that the way we represent information is key to understanding. Data points in a list are usually way less insightful than a good graph (emphasis on good). What I have found is that it's the case in describing system architecture as well. As you say, you can describe a system in a few paragraphs, explaining the relationship between the main components. However, as paragraphs it can harder to grok, and also harder to write with no ambiguity. Now, part of what I say above can be seen as personal preference (text vs image), but in practice I have found that when using tools like plantuml or mermaid to make C4 diagrams, the result is easier to use, remember, and update than plaintext.
- taeric 3y ago
  I think I mostly just disagree, here. I want a graphical representation to be more impactful. But typically any system that scales such that a short list can't explain entry points and dependencies has scaled beyond what graphical tools can do, as well. Now, story boarding a communication sequence between systems can make great use of layout. So, I definitely see potential.

by taeric 3y ago

ewi_ 3y ago

I believe that the way we represent information is key to understanding. Data points in a list are usually way less insightful than a good graph (emphasis on good). What I have found is that it's the case in describing system architecture as well. As you say, you can describe a system in a few paragraphs, explaining the relationship between the main components. However, as paragraphs it can harder to grok, and also harder to write with no ambiguity. Now, part of what I say above can be seen as personal preference (text vs image), but in practice I have found that when using tools like plantuml or mermaid to make C4 diagrams, the result is easier to use, remember, and update than plaintext.

taeric 3y ago
I think I mostly just disagree, here. I want a graphical representation to be more impactful. But typically any system that scales such that a short list can't explain entry points and dependencies has scaled beyond what graphical tools can do, as well. Now, story boarding a communication sequence between systems can make great use of layout. So, I definitely see potential.