Today.

I will read that post sometime (maybe). I wasn’t really referring to some well defined thing, but rather to something that happens naturally when complex software development is done right. Quasi-scientific: make assumptions, build the thing, test assumptions, update assumptions, rinse and repeat. The “architecture” ends up being the collected knowledge about the system which emerges from the development.

Something like that anyway. Interested to read about One and Two Way decisions.

I vividly remember some of the garbage code I’ve written in the past. Huge interface definitions… Weird and brittle abstractions… Overly complex processes to do what should have been a simple task…

Funny thing is, I read and understood the same kinds of things as any other coder worth their salt: agile, SOLID, YAGNI, do one thing well, and so on – but it was all just theory. It takes experience and mistakes to really grok it all.

Is there a meaningful difference between this idea of Post-Architecture and emerging architecture?

I’ve had a colleague or two like that before. “I’m willing to put in the work to fix the code” is something I would hear, as if it were some kind of virtue. To their credit, people like this move mountains to make shit work, and it usually does. Yet, trying to read and understand their code (much less change it) is a Sisyphean endeavor.

Removed by mod

Stuffed.