http://arnon.me/2010/06/software-architecture-5-years/ Musings of a holistic architect by Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz Fri, 11 May 2012 12:51:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://arnon.me/2010/06/software-architecture-5-years/comment-page-1/#comment-277 Link Roundup: June 14, 2010 « SATURN Network Blog Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:07:25 +0000 http://arnon.me/?p=172#comment-277 [...] Software Architecture – 5 Years Later, by Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz at Cirrus Minor. Arnon reminisces about how far he’s come since he began working as a software architect five years ago. [...] [...] Software Architecture – 5 Years Later, by Arnon Rotem-Gal-Oz at Cirrus Minor. Arnon reminisces about how far he’s come since he began working as a software architect five years ago. [...]

]]> http://arnon.me/2010/06/software-architecture-5-years/comment-page-1/#comment-255 William Martinez Pomares Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:57:28 +0000 http://arnon.me/?p=172#comment-255 Almost all points should be taken and the actual state of thinking. That is, there should be no one saying the contrary.Almost.1. The construction architect analogy is dated back to NATO, and was a loosely and quickly deprecated one, It may be use as a introduction for people outside of IT domain, but everybody should know now it is faulty.2. Almost agree. EA should know about SA. Software is not ONE solution, but the constelation of solutions too. A system is not made only of software.3. Architecture is not the design or the UML model. The architecture is the final structure created in code. That said, you have no architecture if all you have is a model in UML. BUT, although jumping to code will create an architecture faster, it is terrible difficult to decide and control the development if there is only the code level view.4. Coding is the description of a solution. Code may be executable or not, and may be at different levels. I code in UML, so to speak. I can create a solution at tactical level, and someone may fill in the holes by writing the ifs and fors, at the end is the same solution. Architect should be able to write code at all levels.5. Agree, when research has a business value goal.6. Agree, when agility means rationale based, structured and disciplined development, instead of chaos and heads down coding.Cheers. Almost all points should be taken and the actual state of thinking. That is, there should be no one saying the contrary.Almost.1. The construction architect analogy is dated back to NATO, and was a loosely and quickly deprecated one, It may be use as a introduction for people outside of IT domain, but everybody should know now it is faulty.2. Almost agree. EA should know about SA. Software is not ONE solution, but the constelation of solutions too. A system is not made only of software.3. Architecture is not the design or the UML model. The architecture is the final structure created in code. That said, you have no architecture if all you have is a model in UML. BUT, although jumping to code will create an architecture faster, it is terrible difficult to decide and control the development if there is only the code level view.4. Coding is the description of a solution. Code may be executable or not, and may be at different levels. I code in UML, so to speak. I can create a solution at tactical level, and someone may fill in the holes by writing the ifs and fors, at the end is the same solution. Architect should be able to write code at all levels.5. Agree, when research has a business value goal.6. Agree, when agility means rationale based, structured and disciplined development, instead of chaos and heads down coding.Cheers.

]]> http://arnon.me/2010/06/software-architecture-5-years/comment-page-1/#comment-233 Nathan Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:15:16 +0000 http://arnon.me/?p=172#comment-233 Good post,  in todays modern agile development environment the architect should be coding. Good post,  in todays modern agile development environment the architect should be coding.

]]>