Re:Software Architecture Is Overrated, Clear and Simple Desi...
by PragmaticPulp on Monday August 08, 2022 @09:44PM
(#32393324)
> They are doing architecture, they just aren't doing it according to "the software architecture literature". Whoop de freaking doo. That statement could be applied to probably 99% of companies out there.
The idea that other companies are all sheep following some clearly-defined, but wrong, practices is getting old. At this point, I’m extra cautious about working with people who insist that they are “not like the other companies” as a point of pride, because it nearly always means that they value being different for the sake of being different.
It’s one thing to evaluate different practices and adapt them to what works best for you and your company. However, when people take it too far and adopt a mindset that they must be different than others because they don’t believe anyone else can do things as well as they can, it becomes an exercise in arrogance.
Re:Software Architecture Is Overrated, Clear and Simple Desi...
by aordano on Monday August 08, 2022 @10:14PM
(#32393541)
Completely agree. You don't even have to go much further than reading the title with some more intent; How is having a "Clear and Simple Design" not a way of architecting a project?
Re:Software Architecture Is Overrated, Clear and Simple Desi...
by iratewizard on Monday August 08, 2022 @09:37PM
(#32393234)
It might be less arrogant and clickbaity if they had framed it this way: design patterns and architecture methodologies are training wheels for understanding how to design and build systems at scale.
Actually, our approach is not that different in principle, to most architecture guides.
This whole article is basically clickbait. The author appears to be arguing against some ill-defined strawman, but in the end even concedes that that isn't true. They are doing architecture, they just aren't doing it according to "the software architecture literature". Whoop de freaking doo. That statement could be applied to probably 99% of companies out there.
The important thing to realize is that all software has an architecture. The difference is, some software has a good architecture that makes it easy for it to meet its requirements, and some of it has shit architecture that makes it brittle, failure prone, impossible to maintain, and generally scary to look at. And also that some software has an architecture that is clearly defined and well understood and (gasp) documented in some way, where other architectures can only be understood by a massive reverse engineering effort.
You can choose either approach, and all of that is orthogonal to whether or not you use UML, 4+1, Design Patterns, DDD, event sourcing, microservices, or whatever buzzword you want to rail against.