5 ms·

The recommendations are often very good, for example Ousterhouts A Philosophy of Software Design, but seem to be on software development in general, not actuall

The recommendations are often very good, for example Ousterhouts A Philosophy of Software Design, but seem to be on software development in general, not actually software architecture in particular. For that, I would recommend the classic texts, such as Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline (Shaw/Garlan) and really anything you can find by Mary Shaw. Including more recent papers that explore why the field of software architecture did not go the way they foresaw, for example Myths and Mythconceptions: What Does It Mean to Be a Programming Language, Anyhow? or Revisiting Abstractions for Software Architecture and Tools to Support Them More practically: look at why Unix pipes and filters and REST are successful, and where they fall down and why. Hexagonal architecture is also key. And a plug for my own contribution, linking software architecture with metaobject protocols as a new foundation for programming languages and programming: Beyond Procedure Calls as Component Glue: Connectors Deserve Metaclass Status. An answer to Mary Shaw's Procedure Calls Are the Assembly Language of Software Interconnection: Connectors Deserve First-Class Status. Answering the question: if procedure calls are the assembly language, what might a high level language look like? And also maybe that software architecture might have a brighter and more practical future ahead of itself.

skydhash 5mo ago
> if procedure calls are the assembly language, what might a high level language look like? I’m not well versed in PLT and SWE tooling, but isn’t that the base concept around lambda calculus, LISP, APL, clojure, TCL,…? You only need a few data structures and types, a small collection of fundamental functions, then you compose them. If there’s one thing that I like about Lisp is that more complex type are always opaque (especially the ones from FFI). I would love to see CLOS implementation for a C-like language, where when you define a struct, what you get is a standard collection of functions.
- mpweiher 5mo ago
  > You only need a few data structures and types, a small collection of fundamental functions For the implementation: yes. Hence "assembly language". The mistake almost universally made is to confuse that with the abstraction mechanism. She showed that it's necessary. I showed how to do it.
sroerick 5mo ago
What is hexagonal architecture?
- mpweiher 5mo ago
  https://www.google.com/search?q=hexagonal%20architecture https://www.google.com/search?q=hexagonal%20architecture First result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_architecture_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_architecture_(softwa...

skydhash 5mo ago

> if procedure calls are the assembly language, what might a high level language look like? I’m not well versed in PLT and SWE tooling, but isn’t that the base concept around lambda calculus, LISP, APL, clojure, TCL,…? You only need a few data structures and types, a small collection of fundamental functions, then you compose them. If there’s one thing that I like about Lisp is that more complex type are always opaque (especially the ones from FFI). I would love to see CLOS implementation for a C-like language, where when you define a struct, what you get is a standard collection of functions.

mpweiher 5mo ago
> You only need a few data structures and types, a small collection of fundamental functions For the implementation: yes. Hence "assembly language". The mistake almost universally made is to confuse that with the abstraction mechanism. She showed that it's necessary. I showed how to do it.

sroerick 5mo ago

What is hexagonal architecture?

mpweiher 5mo ago
https://www.google.com/search?q=hexagonal%20architecture https://www.google.com/search?q=hexagonal%20architecture First result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_architecture_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagonal_architecture_(softwa...