I may have it wrong, but I think 'architecture' can include relatively low-level details: you could even design a program down to the level of what each function does, and still only be doing 'architecture', not coding, so long as you're not writing the code or specifying exactly how it should work.

▲ skydhash 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> you could even design a program down to the level of what each function does, and still only be doing 'architecture', not coding, so long as you're not writing the code or specifying exactly how it should work.

So it all wishes and prayers? no wonder software quality is down.

▲ itishappy 20 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> So it all wishes and prayers?

Software is built on wishes and prayers. Programmers don't ship pixels to be installed in monitors, nor do we (mostly) work with compiler internals. We write a detailed set of instructions and hope that a bunch of systems we don't necessarily comprehend follow them well enough to get the intended results. It works because some folks got together and wrote down their wishes and prayers so good that others were able to understand and follow them later.

▲ Karrot_Kream 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We can be curious about how others approach problems or we can try to find the faults. I feel like this comment is a great example of jumping to the negativity rather than trying to understand a different perspective.

I ultimately think learning how other people structure programs is an enriching task and not one that should cause you to dig in and discredit differently-shaped approaches.

▲ skydhash 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> I ultimately think learning how other people structure programs is an enriching task

Learning from others is great. But there should be actually something to learn. When someone says

  so long as you're not writing the code or specifying exactly how it should work.

It means they’re not creating software. They’re just playing with randomly generating something.

A software is the recipe for some process. The code is the formal version where everything is exhaustively specified. Not thinking about the code means you’ve stopped thinking about the software somewhere and no longer can say if it’s ok or not.

▲ Karrot_Kream an hour ago | parent [-]

What's the point of leaving a comment if you're not going to change your mind and they're not going to change theirs? Is it just to advocate for your position?

	▲	skydhash 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		As you're being very vague, I write more about my opinion, which is based on a guess of what your approach. Basically the Q of P imply Q where P is the guess (and P is the thing you're being vague). I'd like if you can prove that either P is not valid or that there's a different Q that exists. `P: A software is the recipe for some process. The code is the formal version where everything is exhaustively specified. Q: Not thinking about the code means you’ve stopped thinking about the software somewhere and no longer can say if it’s ok or not.`