Good Programmers Make Bad Architects

caffeinatedcoder.com

4 points·foresterh··2 comments

The author of the piece ("Rand") emphasizes that good developers know one language well and architecture requires a multi-language approach. As a programmer-moved-to-architect I don't find this very convincing. One reason is that being a good PROGRAMMER required me to learn several different languages (and thus several different paradigms). I often wrote Java code that strongly resembled functional programming, and my development skills were better for it.

More difficult, I have found, is to adapt to the "build vs buy" choice. As a developer, I generally was asked to build something that could solve the problem. As an architect I am more often asked to decide whether we should build it or we should buy something instead. I have had to train myself to ignore that first instinct which screams "Hey... I know how to do this!!" and replace it with a cold evaluation of whether it is WORTH it to build ourselves.

Overall, though, I disagree: I think good programmers can be good architects. But the article raises some interesting points.

You could almost argue that the definition of a "good programmer" is one that does know many languages, even if just to bring over paradigms from one to the other or keep his brain sharp.

I also think that programmer to architect could go either way. Some programmers are very well versed in their domain and current application and make excellent architects while the application remains the same. Once enough changes are made, they are no longer an expert in the code base, and don't know the best ways to extend and improve on it. Others are good at envisioning the current solution and know, from doing it with the programmer hat, how to best architect a change, no matter how it evolves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com