Software Design and Architecture 2017-13

In this podcast, we heard Bob (better known as Uncle Bob) talking about Software Craftsmanship, a very interesting title for what the architects (should) do. The first argument that Bob tells us is the one I will be focusing on this article; the best kind of architect is the one who codes. So, what did Bob meant with this? As we have talked about on the past entries, there is a big distinction between a boss and a leader; being the latter the one that brings some kind of balance between directing and acting. While the boss is the one that only points at what needs to be done, the leader works with the team towards that goal. Bob points out that the separation of leaders of the team from coding is a huge problem, that’s why architects must get involved with the work that is being made. Why is this important? Because leaders that don’t get involved make critical decisions and then unbind themselves from the project. This “urge” to get everyone involved in the project is

Design; one of the stages we hate (or love) the most has became irrelevant. Or maybe that's what some people say. Is design dead? Well, the first paragraph of the article made me think that the headline was click-bait. Starting off saying "... involves a lot of design, but does it in a different way than established software processes", made me re-think of the title. A clearer approach could have been "Design is evolving", however, I agree with what the author is implying; classical design phase is being replaced by evolutionary design, thanks to the XP outburst. Later in the article, the author states the big difference between planning design and what XP allows us to do with dynamic design. As they are “counters” to each other, each has its advantages and disadvantages (the author implying that evolutionary design is better) I think that getting a balance of both should be the goal. Yes, I love evolutionary design (as it is easier and requires less t