Nice description. On a side note but related, I really think one of the major difference between a developer versus an architect is having strong grasp of how c

Nice description. On a side note but related, I really think one of the major difference between a developer versus an architect is having strong grasp of how components can fit together and impact overall costs, quality and timelines for a project even if you aren't familiar with the specific details of those components. For example if you need to design out something highly distributed you don't necessarily need to be proficient in erlang, or scala + akka, or clojure before you start but you do need to understand the pros and cons of each system, the underpinning philosophy on how they work and basic behaviors of the solutions in terms of speed to develop, benchmarks, known scaling problems, trouble spots etc. Sometimes you need to use the right tool for the job even if you don't know the tool yet. Sometimes that means taking a deep dive to get to know the technology, talking to experts on the technology and fitting their feedback into the overall picture of what the system needs to do. Which is a very different skill set then being able to pack as much functionality as possible into an MCU, or improve average performance on an algorithem, or being able to rapidly construct a component. Which is why I advertise myself as architect and not as systems developer, or ux guy or full stack engineer. It's the type of work I enjoy doing, and it's the work that clients get the most bang for their buck out of me for their retainers. It doesn't mean I think I'm a better developer than non architects. In a lot of ways I'm not, but I does mean that I think (rightly or wrongly) that I am often better at sleuthing out the rough behavioral characteristics of components or technologies needed for a project and knowing how to leverage that high level understanding together for designing or improving a project.