3 ms·

It is an unfashionable role right now in good software development organizations. I used to go by the title but tend not to anymore. Nevertheless, there is sti

It is an unfashionable role right now in good software development organizations. I used to go by the title but tend not to anymore. Nevertheless, there is still a need for that role in large organizations whether they are called that or not. A typical project or product at a large company has many people over multiple sites involved and/or significantly affected by the project. Someone with enough technical depth needs to coordinate, make decisions, and be accountable for the overall technical cohesion. Most developers either aren't interested in spending their time on that or aren't good at it. The ones that are end up playing the role of architect. If they don't have the authority to back it up, either by reputation or granted by title, they will get nowhere when they try to convince other groups all work towards the same vision.

exabrial 12y ago
Agree. It is unfashionable, but in the long run, having a unified technical vision for your product breaks down silos and makes products easy to maintain. Here's the problems I've had with this position: 1) Not innovating. Basically you decided 10 years ago to use Java 1.4.2 and by golly it was good enough then it's good enough now. You have to rock the boat occasionally. And yes, your applications should require a rewrite every 3-5 years. 2) I've worked with too many people that were promoted into the role by time at the job, instead of skill, which is the real anti-pattern. 3) They "don't code." This is ridiculous. Eat your own dog food. If you can't code faster/better than the engineers underneath you, you need to be replaced.