Hacker News Reader

Comment by dingaling | Hacker News Reader

> In the same way that ex-engineers often struggle to let go of the code when they switch into management, I've seen the same thing happen to those switching to architect roles

It's not always a choice; where I worked, as architects we sometimes had to put on our hero-capes and wade into code to save the day.

Saying "that's an implementation issue" doesn't work when the implementers don't have the savvy to make it work. Or, worse, throw up their hands and say it's impossible because of the unreasonable demands of those ivory-tower architects . Can't we just save the credit card details to a local database instead of all that integration stuff?

At the end of the project, if it works it's despite the architects and if it fails it's due to the architects... always in the spotlight but never in the limelight.

View on HN

> It's not always a choice; where I worked, as architects we sometimes had to put on our hero-capes and wade into code to save the day.

I think its a matter of context, and one "architect" from one organisation to another will differ greatly.

I've never seen a good "hands-off" architect in my experience. They've normally been the failed developers, or the ones that have been able to network to such an extent they get to a hands-off role. But, that's in context. Dilbertian almost.

>I've never seen a good "hands-off" architect in my experience.

Because when it's done right, coding is 80% "architecting" stuff. If there is more than a tiny amount of menial work involved in programming then you are generally doing something very wrong.

I think architect is one of the worst metaphors to ever grace the software engineering profession, by giving this impression that a programmer who can work "hands off" is even possible.

Couldn't have said it better myself, a really well said point or series of points.

Or, even worse, "designing" everything in UML diagrams and then throwing it over a wall to "just be coded up" and then running away.

Edit: Just to be clear - it's the "just coding" attitude and particularly the avoidance of actually mucking in and getting stuff to work that is the real problem with this approach. Mind you - I do hate UML, but that is personal!

Fuck UML and fuck everybody who writes UML. Seriously. Those people are a cancer upon this profession.

Code or GTFO.

>>Because when it's done right, coding is 80% "architecting" stuff. If there is more than a tiny amount of menial work involved in programming then you are generally doing something very wrong.

I both agree and disagree with this, or it may be that the statement is vague (or that I just don't understand it).

I have seen horrible "analysis paralysis" at most of the big financial institution where I have worked - especially the ones with a separate "architect" job. Hundreds of UML diagrams that were worse than none.

For myself, I actually understand problems better by coding them. I can't always say exactly how something will work until I do it. Once I have general idea defined, I just start coding it!

This is not to say that I sometimes don't put pencil to paper to help me think it through, but I would say I spend far, far more time coding than thinking. In fact, for me, coding is thinking. Yes, there is rewriting and throwing away and revising and tightening that inevitably happens. I work more like a writer, I suppose.

This may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's how I work. There is a balance to these things and it's up to everyone to figure out where they fall.

This sounds more or less exactly like what I wrote. What part did you disagree with?

I may have read it wrong.

I would have said: "Because when it's done right, 80% of "architecting" stuff is coding."

If that is spirit of what you are saying, then I got it backwards! (apologies)

Edit: I think I see the problem. There is an "of" missing. "Because when it's done right, coding is 80% OF "architecting" stuff."

The UML thing made me think of this: http://thecodelesscode.com/case/137

The problem is people want to feel special. It's not enough to say you're a Computer Programmer. Instead you have to be a Software Engineer. And once that bores you, you start calling yourself an Architect.

I have an actual engineering degree. Call me what you want to call me, but at the end of the day, I'm a computer programmer. And darn proud to be one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com