3 ms·

It depends on what career trajectory a senior developer is. If he is destined to become a specialist, then this article is spot on. If instead he dreams of bec

It depends on what career trajectory a senior developer is. If he is destined to become a specialist, then this article is spot on. If instead he dreams of becomming a manager or architect, then he would actually not be coding the most complicated parts, and make sure to keep himself off the critical path of the project, so as to free up his time, so he can spend his time helping his colleagues and clearing the rocks in their path. Also as a manager or architect, you better get used to constant interruptions, degrading the quality of code you can generate. So think hard before assigning that critical section to yourself.

mrcsparker 12y ago
For a manager, I agree. An architect should write the most complicated, not the least complicated, part of code. This is assuming that the architect is the most experienced developer on the team. This doesn't include paper architects, which are pretty much salespeople. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this - this is the way that I have always handled projects.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  I suppose whether or not I agree depends on what you mean by complicated: there's complexity of an algorithm implementation and there's complexity of program structure. I would think that you'd want an architect to work on non-tight-loop, core-to-the-control flow complexity, and leave the optimization of tight loops and such to people with more time to focus on the details of that (eg, what processor is being used), and instead work on the complexity of the control/data flow abstractions, which is what he already knows the most about, having designed their architecture. This also keeps his role as central organizer of the code and flow through it, rather than having his time sidetracked (partially) by other concerns.
  - kabouseng 12y ago
    That is how I have it as well. With our projects usually the architect would write the framework of the product at the beginning of project, almost being the only developer on the project. As other developers start getting on the project he guides them where their code should live, and he start to disengage writing and serve more in a guiding role.
- polack 12y ago
  I see the architect role in software development pretty much the same as a architect of a building. He/she will be in charge of the big picture and let others do most of the implementation and deal with small details, unless it's a crucial detail that the construction workers/developers needs help on.

mrcsparker 12y ago

For a manager, I agree. An architect should write the most complicated, not the least complicated, part of code. This is assuming that the architect is the most experienced developer on the team. This doesn't include paper architects, which are pretty much salespeople. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this - this is the way that I have always handled projects.

ObviousScience 12y ago
I suppose whether or not I agree depends on what you mean by complicated: there's complexity of an algorithm implementation and there's complexity of program structure. I would think that you'd want an architect to work on non-tight-loop, core-to-the-control flow complexity, and leave the optimization of tight loops and such to people with more time to focus on the details of that (eg, what processor is being used), and instead work on the complexity of the control/data flow abstractions, which is what he already knows the most about, having designed their architecture. This also keeps his role as central organizer of the code and flow through it, rather than having his time sidetracked (partially) by other concerns.
- kabouseng 12y ago
  That is how I have it as well. With our projects usually the architect would write the framework of the product at the beginning of project, almost being the only developer on the project. As other developers start getting on the project he guides them where their code should live, and he start to disengage writing and serve more in a guiding role.
polack 12y ago
I see the architect role in software development pretty much the same as a architect of a building. He/she will be in charge of the big picture and let others do most of the implementation and deal with small details, unless it's a crucial detail that the construction workers/developers needs help on.