It seems to me that this dude (Martin Fowler) was (at least at the time of writing this piece) as confused as I am about sofrware architecture. He is inconclusive (to say the least) about software architecture itself. He does make some subtle and interesting points (most of which I agree with) about the process, art or act of making software but I really disliked how he had to ramble on and on about the search for the 'true definition' of software architecture when it appears to me that his article is not about that perse. I'd be grateful if he could just state his points plainly and just make his thought-train-discovery process and discussions (the rambling about the definition of architecture) available to the reader if he/she desires it. I'm not reading his stuff for entertainment.
His entire article could be summarized in the following: "There is no one definition of 'software architecture' because it is a very subjective concept because building software is not limited or bounded by anything physical, but only by the minds and intelligence of the people doing it." I agree with that. I didn't need the rest.
In my eye design has a very simple definition: You are going to produce an object. A thing. That thing has to meet/have a very peculiar set of goals and requirements. If you create your object in such a way that does, you've made a good design. Otherwise, you haven't.
That is my personal definition, the one that I go with in my life. It is very general. Anything beyond that would be a bit too specific for me to try to apply it generally like I do with the one I mentoned. This is why the authors piece on the search for a specific and yet generally appliable definition of what he calls 'architecture' is very unenjoyable to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment