While these somewhat fuzzy definitions are hugely important (well, it says: "the important stuff, whatever that is", so by definition...), I have a hard time calling them "software architecture".

I'd like to suggest that at least some of the problems associated with the term, for example the pomposity, are rooted in the "separation from programming" that is not just a suggestion, but an unfortunate fact of architecture today.

And I would further suggest that we could improve the situation if we could actually express our architectures in our programs, in our programming languages. Then software architecture wouldn't just be "deeply intertwined with programming", as it must be, but actually be part of programming and part of the program.

And once the architecture becomes part of the program, it becomes part of our feedback loops. My experience is that feedback loops are a good antidote to pomposity and great for building/evolving systems.

To do that, though, we have to retreat from this idea that software architecture must be fuzzy, an idea that IMNSHO is just a cope for the current sad state of affairs. We have pretty good definitions of architecture (connectors and components, systems, architectural styles, etc.), let's start using them in earnest and in our programs.