3 ms·
We need this to be more prevalent. But the sad fact is most architects try to justify their position and high salaries by creating "robust" software. You know w
by weatherlite 3y ago
We need this to be more prevalent. But the sad fact is most architects try to justify their position and high salaries by creating "robust" software. You know what I mean - factories over factories, micro services and what not.
If we kept it simple I don't think we would need many architects. We would just need experienced devs that know the codebase well and help with PRs and design processes, no need to call such a person 'architect', there's not much to architect in such a role.
- Tade0 3y agoI was shown what it means to write robust software by a guy with a PhD in... philosophy out of all things(so a literal philosophiae doctor). Ironically enough it was nothing like what some architecture astronauts wring - just a set of simple to follow rules, like organizing files by domain, using immutable data structures and pure functions where reasonable etc. Also I hadn't seen him use dependent types in the one project we worked together on and generics appeared only when it really made sense. Apparently it boils down to using the right tools, not everything you've got at once.
- namaria 3y agoI love how so much of distributed systems/robust software wisdom is basically: stop OOP. Go back to lambda. OOP was a great concept initially. Somehow it got equated with the corporate driven insanity of attaching functions to data structures in arbitrary ways, and all the folly that follows. Because "objects" are easy to imagine and pure functions aren't? I don't know but I'd like to understand why corporations keep peddling programming paradigms that fundamentally detract from what computer science knows about managing complex distributed systems.