Comment by xyzzy_plugh

I like this, but I have trouble with relating architecture to complexity. The "generally" qualifier serves as an apt escape hatch but permit me to ignore that for a moment.

Architecture emerges as the holistic shape of the design, the pattern of patterns, the bones of the system. It's possible to have architecture that reduces complexity by reducing scope and forcing apt compartmentalization into reusable, composable bits. One could perhaps even argue that GoF's Design Patterns attempts to commoditize the language to achieve greater degree of simplicity... but let's not.

I have trouble distinguishing architecture from design here. Imagine a kitchen with many cabinets, all alike. Some cupboards open by pulling a handle, some open when you push the handle, others swing up, or you must unscrew the handle. This is horrible and unintuitive, and surprising. Good architecture like good design eschews surprises (as in shock) and provides intuition by weaving consistency through the system. You build an expectation that things behave a certain way, and they do.

I would posit that good architecture, like good design, does not introduce complexity, rather the complexity is present regardless, and they delete layers of uncertainty and facilitate the necessary clarity to bring the overall objective into focus.

Perhaps there is a complexity cost introduced by adhering to a design or pattern or architecture, but if it's not outweighed by the credit it provides, offsetting overall complexity, then it's bad.

Your observation about path-dependency is on the money most certainly.