3 ms·
> ...and are oblivious to the problems on the ground. Should they even care, if it's not their role? Engineers are hired to problem solve, architects are hire
by alphadevx 12y ago
> ...and are oblivious to the problems on the ground.
Should they even care, if it's not their role? Engineers are hired to problem solve, architects are hired to design.
Think about an architect designing a building: should he/she know the intricacies of every separate sub-system in the building (plumbing, wiring, ventilation, gas...), or rely on experts in each of those sub-systems to resolve implementation issues? The architect is only concerned with pulling together all of these separate efforts to form something cohesive and elegant.
- jacalata 12y ago"Problems on the ground" can include things like how much sun the location gets, which direction it comes from, how cold the place is in winter and how many feet of snow it averages. An architect who ignores all these local details will be lucky to design a building that lasts a year.
- xorcist 12y agoNot many buildings would stand upright if what you said was true. An architect absolutely needs to be on top of the technical implementation of both ventilation, fire systems and plumbing. They won't be the ones who installs them those things are taken into consideration when the plans come together. If you think an architect only dreams up what it should look like and then leave the project you are mistaken. With that said, I think a building architect is a terrible metaphor for what's done in software engineering for plenty of other reasons. And yes, you absolutely need to have intimate details of how the coherency protocol works if you are the software architect of a clustered system, just to take an example. In the opposite direction lies disaster (which I've seen first hand).