Posted: Jan 7, 2005 2:52 AM
> > > Well, given that you just read those two articles, it
> > > would be more interesting to hear your answer to that
> > > question first. How would you "translate"
> > > to software?
> > Well, that's the tricky part. In your blog, you write:
> > "Personally, the distinction seems very simple and
> > For me, it seems that the two terms are used pretty
> > interchangably, in the field of software.
> Just because people confuse and conflate them doesn't mean
> that they aren't actually distinct. In a simple and clear
> way. :-)
Of course they can be that.
> > I don't know how I would define them for software (and
> > indeed, there doesn't seem to be much of agreed on
> > definitions of them), which is why I'm interested in
> > _your_ definition (preferably with some kind of
> > example).
> That is my concrete example.
What is your concrete example? I haven't seen any.
>The analogy with software is exact.
The road- and sign-example?
> Part of the confusion that you've perceived in the
> discussions of the distinction between architecture and
> design in the software world is exactly the same
> discussion that took place in that "design" discussion
> piece. I.e., it's arguable that they are discussing
> "design" but they are completely missing talking about the
> fundamental purpose of the system in which the design
> is/might-be used.
So... Are you saying something like that architecture defines how a system is to work, and be used, and the design is the implementation of that architecture, or some such?
This still seems pretty nebulous to me, and in such cases, concrete examples may give us something, well, concrete, to discuss.