If you try to build the most flexible, scalable solution on day one, you are very likely to make the wrong predictions about the architecture you will need in the future. You will probably need to rewrite the software anyway.
Yes, but the software has to be compiled to the architecture too using that solution. So it is just putting the problem on to others: the users, the software developers, etc. - many of whom will happily just use something else.
pure frustration and after a few hundred words it is about how cool the challenging software is. well it doesn't sove the problem, you just have some different problems on that scale. your problems require architecture
What's worse, the field is constantly changing. What was true on one architecture may not be true on another, and even different generations of a single architecture can change a lot.
People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.
That is no different from people who call themselves “software architects”. You can’t build great software architectures if you don’t know how to build and optimize the underlying architecture it runs on and how to build the pipelines that put the code on those systems.
Also architectural needs sometimes are not really needs. E.g. you have a program for dos and think that you need a complete rewrite for windows. Then someone heroically ports over the dos program to windows, because the programs are not compatible. You end up with two programs to maintain.
There is no such thing as “no architecture”. You will always have an architecture no matter what you do. So better think about what you want the architecture to be or you will end up with the “mud pile” architecture most software has.
reply