Talk:Software architect: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:58, 4 October 2013

untitled

Completely rewrote the software architect article. Removed the stub indicator. normxxx 19:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Support — This article appears to be an almost direct copy of the Systems architect article, with only minor changes. It seems more sensible to simply have a systems architect article that includes a section describing the differences between a systems architect and a software architect (which may only be in the name, in the case of systems that are basically just software). --Allan McInnes (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan: The similarity is not accidental. It is a technique I developed in writing formal specifications— it forces the reader to concentrate on the real differences and not on any apparent differences due to different wording. English is tricky. Please see my comments on the SE talk page.

What I think is much more important is to see how we can meld the definition for Technical architecture and also Operational architecture— which seem to be architectural views being advanced by the Army, DoD in general, and SEI. I think those need to be better melded into our current Wiki set of definitions. In particular, as I read the literature, Technical architecture is not exclusively about software, so to that extent, the Wiki definition is wrong! ⇒ _normxxx| ^talk ⇒ email 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normxxx: the problem is that without doing a diff of the two articles it is almost impossible to see the differences, and thus hard to focus on them. A surface reading of the two articles (Which is all many readers may do) makes the two seem identical. That is the reason that someone (and I should point out that someone wasn't me) has proposed to merge the articles. The alternative would be to rewrite this article to say something like "A software architect is a systems architect who specializes in developing software systems. The role of the software architect is in most respects the same as that of a systems architect. But there are some differences that result from the software architect's focus on software systems. These differences include...". The following references may help:

--Allan McInnes (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed ther merge tag, per the discussions at Talk:Systems architect. --Allan McInnes (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between System Architects and Software Architects. You could take a look at the System Architecture and Software Architecture pages to find out. Basically, it boils down to responsibility. The Software Architect makes the decisions about the software, the system architect about those decisions that have a big impact both software and hardware. In the Sixth Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture there was a session about the duties of a software architect. This might be good scientific point for revising the current description.

Proposed new rewrite

The article is too dry and coupled to a particular style of developing software. I propose removing all aspects that talk of document deliverables and specific workflows, and instead focus on the communication aspects, as well as attempting to define the core of the role (what does a software architect do for the business). 216.17.5.44 13:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Steve Campbell[reply]

Proposed new rewrite, reply

Sounds OK. Some of the other articles (including those generated by me or had major input from me) have been vastly improved since I visited this site last. However, recognize what you are getting into. This is one of a large number of engineering and systems and software and hardware articles which all hang together: if you majorly modify one, then the rest should be changed. Also, while discussion of work products may be avoided, I doubt that discussion of work flow can be, since we still need to distinguish software architect from systems architect and hardware architect— not to mention such architects as building architects or naval architects.

Also, people generally want to know what it is exactly an architect does, and this is almost impossible to disentagle from workflow and/or work product.

I think something like Allan's suggestion above has merit; we can then concentrate on the systems architect article and note the difference in the other engineering achitect articles.

Normxxx 18:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-written the article. The new article takes the viewpoint that Software Architect is too general a term to define exactly. It tries to focus on generalized areas of input, rather than on specific outputs of the role. I have marked the article as a stub, because I believe what is there now is a good starting point.

Regarding types of architect, there seems to be very little agreement on what the specific terms mean. I have tried to provide good references where I could, but some of the work is original (for example, the table comparing types of architects).

Steve Campbell 14:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest edit

Hello: I wonder if the author of the latest edit would be kind enough to comment on his or her reasons for undoing my re-writing? I do not believe I have made any material alterations to the article; I merely have been trying to improve the writing. Thanks! --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 02:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was an accident, and took the liberty of reverting. That editor attempted to add an external link, and I think started from a previous version of the article (he's a new editor). If it's a good link go ahead and re-add it. Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty crappy

Not unexpected though. Lycurgus (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The application architect is almost always an active software developer?

Yes citation is needed for such generalisation. In my experience it just differs from organisation to organisation. The organisation I currently work for the opposite is true. Application architects are almost always not active software developers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hseldon1234 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC) --Hseldon1234 (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal ramifications of using the title of architect

Discussion at Talk:Enterprise_architect#Architect --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please moderate the description of an architect :)

"Software architect is a computer programmer who makes high-level design choices and dictates technical standards, including software coding standards, tools, and platforms."

Gabriel K.:

First you don't dictate, you "strongly" suggest, otherwise you limit the innovation in your team. You need feedbacks and tips!

My description of a software architect correspond to what you have in a startup.

In my junior years, I was a dictator, but it doesn't work. Then I've learned the job.

- Visionary: You need to have a vision of the product. What you do now, and what you expect to do in the future. How can you reach this target. - Strong in IT: You need to be strong in development, strong in system infrastructure (what we call a DevOp). - Strong in process and coaching: Then your goal is to help your team to reach his goal. You need to understand how you can help you team to perform better (the description of a scrum master is quite good). You perhaps need to create new process, or remove some process! How can you help your team to perform better? Do things make sense? - Strong in Business: You need to understand and sell your architecture to your people, and to the CEO / management / sales. You need to understand what is the role of everyone and how the architecture help them to reach their goal.

An architect is a communicator in a team. You are part of the top management, but part of the "workers".