|
:3
I find myself "architecting" code very little, but I'm kinda small scale, and I work mainly in Python.
The most architecting I do, is opening up Visual Studio, designing a GUI, then putting it into text with GTK.
|
|
|
|
|
Think, in the definition of the survey omitted the word "formal".
Without it the question has a little sense for the human beings.
Their main difference from, say, monkeys is exactly this: planing somehow or other every their step.
Regards,
GennadyMy English is permanently under construction. Be patient !!
|
|
|
|
|
You, we, must decide what is trivial however. If stove pipe, same program that you wrote yesterday, then no. If distrubuted, complex, new, then yes. It seems obvious....Depending upon how many fine projects one has seen fail, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
It is obviously not critical, because don't do it and have a good product.
I think it is critical for the BEST outcome, but past "over architecting" has soured many users/managers/etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Deano wrote: because don't do it and have a good product.
On the long terms, when you do maintenance and updates, it will not be a good productforeach(Minute m in MyLife)
myExperience++;
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, but we do have a 7-8 year old GOOD product.
I think if we did better planning/designing/architecting we would have a GREAT product!
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I am really ranting here a little: software needs to be designed. However, by the time the word "architecture" kicks in, it is most probably over-designed, and developers will spend most of their time fighting the architecture instead of solving real-life problems for the users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very True! Managers want something real to be done rather than just the planning. Managers don't always have the time to discuss about plans and architecture in a non-software company.
|
|
|
|
|
Semantics, "designed" versus "architecture". Don't project organizational issues (although common, I grant you) with necessary steps in the development cycle.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
TimWallace wrote: Semantics, "designed" versus "architecture".
I agree somewhat, however I have noticed that the use of the word "architecture" in practice often indicates overengineered code. I have seen examples of simple and effective design, but no-one used the word "architecture" there.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: developers will spend most of their time fighting the architecture
I think that may be more indicative of a problem with the developers (lack of maturity and/or focus) vs. the architecture.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: I think that may be more indicative of a problem with the developers (lack of maturity and/or focus) vs. the architecture.
Sorry, but if as a developer, I spend most of my time trying to figure out what the heck the "architecture" is trying to accomplish and how to add a simple feature that a customer wants, I say the problem is with architecture, not with developers. If I need to edit various (often undocumented) XML files and (in case of .NET) insert attributes to add a simple control to a dialog, I say the problem is with the architecture. If I need to spend hours trying to figure out how to open a simple file, I say the problem is with the architecture, not developers.
I've seen that problem in at least three companies I worked at - all of them filled with smart people and relatively well organized.
utf8-cpp
modified on Wednesday, March 10, 2010 1:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
You're right. I misread "fighting the architecture" as "fighting about the architecture". If the architecture forces you to go through hoops to implement something straightforward, that indeed smells like a poor architecture.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Ravi Bhavnani wrote: If the architecture forces you to go through hoops to implement something straightforward, that indeed smells like a poor architecture.
The real problem is that I have yet to see a "good architecture" 
|
|
|
|
|
You also dont want some astronaut doing architecture...
|
|
|
|
|
"making it up as you go along" is a form of architecting.
Even if I just whip off a "Hello world!" program, it is architected.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: "making it up as you go along" is a form of architecting design.
Even if I just whip off a "Hello world!" program, it is architected designed.
Now I feel better 
|
|
|
|
|
First you decide what it is you want (design), then you work out the details (architect).
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: then you work out the details (architect).
I think "Details" means "Development" not "Architecture"
Architct's role comes before Designer's role.foreach(Minute m in MyLife)
myExperience++;
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree; the general design (n-tier, etc.) comes first, then the details (language and technologies, etc.) are architected.
|
|
|
|
|
to a small degree i agree with you! but i take architecture as the different technology's that can be used together such as Desktop Apps with web services etc
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: then you work out the details (architect
That's the wierdest definition of "architecting" I have ever seen. Architecting is usually higher level design - less focus on details and more on the big picture, at least that is the original meaning of the word in the world of building construction.
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all; architects are the ones who have to work out all the details after the broad strokes of the design are decided.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
