Role of an Architect and of Architecture


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Role of an Architect and of Architecture

  1. #1
    Michael Gautier Guest

    Role of an Architect and of Architecture

    http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/20...nds/default_pf
    ..asp



    Do you think that the concept of a software architect in corporate IT
    departments will ever catch on?



    What to do think the impact of such an industry wide adoption would be on
    the state of software development as it exists today?



    One could state that software development is not comparable to building
    architecture because buildings last and software changes constantly. Does
    the opinion modify the use of architecture as a model for software or is
    software engineering more appropriate?



    Since we have .NET and Java, should this be the most important target for
    organizations or is this simply a philosophical issue not worthy of
    consideration?



    Who should be architects? Are developers today a version of Medieval Masons
    who should rise to become today's architects or are different type of people
    needed (technical hands on vs. high-level designers/business)?



    Is architecture appropriate for all software or merely appropriate for
    enterprise level applications?




    What are you own questions?



  2. #2
    David Lanouette Guest

    Re: Role of an Architect and of Architecture


    <soap box>
    I think the idea of a true Architect is way over due. The biggest problem
    with this industry is that we build things for the sake of building them.
    Long ago the user got lost.

    That's the major focus of the architect - the user. They are responsible
    for making sure the user is represented and focused on in the whole development
    process.

    The biggest problem I see is that so many of those that call themselves Architects
    are really engineers. They are focused on making sure that there is enough
    throughput, the system scales, the database is optimized... Thats not what
    an architect is for.

    For a better idea, visit http://www.wwisa.org/.

    </soap box>


    "Michael Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/20...nds/default_pf
    >..asp
    >
    >
    >
    >Do you think that the concept of a software architect in corporate IT
    >departments will ever catch on?
    >
    >
    >
    >What to do think the impact of such an industry wide adoption would be on
    >the state of software development as it exists today?
    >
    >
    >
    >One could state that software development is not comparable to building
    >architecture because buildings last and software changes constantly. Does
    >the opinion modify the use of architecture as a model for software or is
    >software engineering more appropriate?
    >
    >
    >
    >Since we have .NET and Java, should this be the most important target for
    >organizations or is this simply a philosophical issue not worthy of
    >consideration?
    >
    >
    >
    >Who should be architects? Are developers today a version of Medieval Masons
    >who should rise to become today's architects or are different type of people
    >needed (technical hands on vs. high-level designers/business)?
    >
    >
    >
    >Is architecture appropriate for all software or merely appropriate for
    >enterprise level applications?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >What are you own questions?
    >
    >



  3. #3
    Rohit Wason Guest

    Re: Role of an Architect and of Architecture


    I partially agree with you - David, but I will come back to that a bit later...

    Michael,
    You asked about Architechs - their role is to ensure that the desired software
    works in the desired manner on the desired hardware.

    To acomplish the above mantioned high-level task, they drill down to optimum
    designs, prototypes in early stages of project, using best technologies and
    techniques for solving design problems (patterns et al) and so on, and yes
    their resp. very well includes "...throughput, the system scales, the database
    is optimized..."

    Daved,
    "..That's the major focus of the architect - the user..". Well, that's the
    responsibility of everyone on board. I can hear the word (ideally) there.
    Okay, lets take it this way...

    The Managers and the initial stakeholders start the project. They prove that
    they can do the project with the specified team and specified requirements.
    They are the points of contacts for the clients' higher level mgmt.

    Leave apart that 'whom to catch when the project fails' question. The Requirement
    Analysts (and I strongly feel they should be people with ample developement
    skills IN ADDITION TO good understanding skills and good knowledge of the
    domain in question). These folks are the ones that 'take care' of the users
    en prime.



    Cheers,
    Rohit






    "David Lanouette" <DLanouette@Computer.org> wrote:
    >
    ><soap box>
    >I think the idea of a true Architect is way over due. The biggest problem
    >with this industry is that we build things for the sake of building them.
    > Long ago the user got lost.
    >
    >That's the major focus of the architect - the user. They are responsible
    >for making sure the user is represented and focused on in the whole development
    >process.
    >
    >The biggest problem I see is that so many of those that call themselves

    Architects
    >are really engineers. They are focused on making sure that there is enough
    >throughput, the system scales, the database is optimized... Thats not what
    >an architect is for.
    >
    >For a better idea, visit http://www.wwisa.org/.
    >
    ></soap box>
    >
    >
    >"Michael Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/20...nds/default_pf
    >>..asp
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Do you think that the concept of a software architect in corporate IT
    >>departments will ever catch on?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>What to do think the impact of such an industry wide adoption would be

    on
    >>the state of software development as it exists today?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>One could state that software development is not comparable to building
    >>architecture because buildings last and software changes constantly. Does
    >>the opinion modify the use of architecture as a model for software or is
    >>software engineering more appropriate?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Since we have .NET and Java, should this be the most important target for
    >>organizations or is this simply a philosophical issue not worthy of
    >>consideration?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Who should be architects? Are developers today a version of Medieval Masons
    >>who should rise to become today's architects or are different type of people
    >>needed (technical hands on vs. high-level designers/business)?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Is architecture appropriate for all software or merely appropriate for
    >>enterprise level applications?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>What are you own questions?
    >>
    >>

    >



  4. #4
    Watcher Guest

    Re: Role of an Architect and of Architecture


    It is quite clear that the author of the articel you quote at the top is himself
    incapable of defining what an architect is. In a massively circuitous way
    he reverts to the definition in the mind of many: an experiences senior developer
    sometimes called even a 'Designer.'

    What makes the article more unreadable is gorvelling to Microsoft.

    .Net, basically a marketing effort that is rapidly shifting. Its technology
    content, apart from wiping out OLE/COM/COM+/DCOM, is a long-awaited step
    back to the realm of mainstream programming. Even that is very bad by itself,
    since it offers no escape from the old paradigm.

    Currently, the title in question is a loose attribute of a senior designer
    - who still need to dirty his hands since the role, vital as it is, is limited
    in time requirements and scope.

    "Michael Gautier" <gautier_michael@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >http://www.fawcette.com/dotnetmag/20...nds/default_pf
    >..asp
    >
    >
    >
    >Do you think that the concept of a software architect in corporate IT
    >departments will ever catch on?
    >
    >
    >
    >What to do think the impact of such an industry wide adoption would be on
    >the state of software development as it exists today?
    >
    >
    >
    >One could state that software development is not comparable to building
    >architecture because buildings last and software changes constantly. Does
    >the opinion modify the use of architecture as a model for software or is
    >software engineering more appropriate?
    >
    >
    >
    >Since we have .NET and Java, should this be the most important target for
    >organizations or is this simply a philosophical issue not worthy of
    >consideration?
    >
    >
    >
    >Who should be architects? Are developers today a version of Medieval Masons
    >who should rise to become today's architects or are different type of people
    >needed (technical hands on vs. high-level designers/business)?
    >
    >
    >
    >Is architecture appropriate for all software or merely appropriate for
    >enterprise level applications?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >What are you own questions?
    >
    >



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center