Comment by retsibsi
9 hours ago
I may have it wrong, but I think 'architecture' can include relatively low-level details: you could even design a program down to the level of what each function does, and still only be doing 'architecture', not coding, so long as you're not writing the code or specifying exactly how it should work.
> you could even design a program down to the level of what each function does, and still only be doing 'architecture', not coding, so long as you're not writing the code or specifying exactly how it should work.
So it all wishes and prayers? no wonder software quality is down.
> So it all wishes and prayers?
Software is built on wishes and prayers. Programmers don't ship pixels to be installed in monitors, nor do we (mostly) work with compiler internals. We write a detailed set of instructions and hope that a bunch of systems we don't necessarily comprehend follow them well enough to get the intended results. It works because some folks got together and wrote down their wishes and prayers so good that others were able to understand and follow them later.
We can be curious about how others approach problems or we can try to find the faults. I feel like this comment is a great example of jumping to the negativity rather than trying to understand a different perspective.
I ultimately think learning how other people structure programs is an enriching task and not one that should cause you to dig in and discredit differently-shaped approaches.
> I ultimately think learning how other people structure programs is an enriching task
Learning from others is great. But there should be actually something to learn. When someone says
It means they’re not creating software. They’re just playing with randomly generating something.
A software is the recipe for some process. The code is the formal version where everything is exhaustively specified. Not thinking about the code means you’ve stopped thinking about the software somewhere and no longer can say if it’s ok or not.
2 replies →