ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
78% Positive
Analyzed from 1107 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#architecture#software#model#programming#design#find#feels#project#abstract#often
Discussion (14 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
For that, I would recommend the classic texts, such as Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline (Shaw/Garlan) and really anything you can find by Mary Shaw. Including more recent papers that explore why the field of software architecture did not go the way they foresaw, for example Myths and Mythconceptions: What Does It Mean to Be a Programming Language, Anyhow? or Revisiting Abstractions for Software Architecture and Tools to Support Them
More practically: look at why Unix pipes and filters and REST are successful, and where they fall down and why. Hexagonal architecture is also key.
And a plug for my own contribution, linking software architecture with metaobject protocols as a new foundation for programming languages and programming: Beyond Procedure Calls as Component Glue: Connectors Deserve Metaclass Status. An answer to Mary Shaw's Procedure Calls Are the Assembly Language of Software Interconnection: Connectors Deserve First-Class Status.
Answering the question: if procedure calls are the assembly language, what might a high level language look like? And also maybe that software architecture might have a brighter and more practical future ahead of itself.
Confucius treats learning as cultivation: you do not really know something just because you were instructed in it. You know it by practicing, reflecting, making mistakes, and gradually developing judgment.
Laozi gives the complementary warning: “In pursuing learning, every day something is added. In pursuing the Tao, every day something is dropped.” Mastery is not only accumulation. It is also subtraction: removing unnecessary abstraction, ceremony, cleverness, and control.
Software architecture seems to need both. You learn it in a Confucian sense, by doing real work and living with the consequences. You improve it in a Taoist sense, by noticing when the system has accumulated structure that no longer serves the people, incentives, and constraints that actually shape it.
That is why the article’s point about incentives resonates. Architecture is not just what you design on paper. It is what survives contact with the organization that produces and maintains it.
Not all chapters are equally good or equally interesting, that's the curse of a multi-author book, and all of them are dated, but I think the book is worth reading nonetheless.
[1] http://aosabook.org/
It's heavily dependent on the project, but I feel like working as a "fullstack dev" kind of removes the fun of programming. I'm already spending 40 hrs a week looking at the most dull project I can imagine
You don't have to call a sequence of transformations a compiler. You can say your AST is an algebraic data type, and your transformations are folds (or structural recursions; same thing). Now you have an abstract model that isn't tied to a particular application, and you can more easily find uses for it.
If you know a bit of maths you might wonder about duals. You will find codata---objects---are the dual of algebraic data. Ok, now we're programming to interfaces. That's also useful in the right context. What's the dual of a fold? An unfold! So now we have another way of looking at transformations, from the point of view of what they produce instead of what they consume. At this point we've basically reinvented reactive programming. And on and on it goes.
You can find most of this in the literature, just not usually presented in a compact and easy to understand form.
(Note, the above description is very quick sketch and I'm not expecting anyone to understand all the details from it alone.)
Shameless self promotion: the book I'm writing is about all these concepts. You can find it here: https://functionalprogrammingstrategies.com/
But I would say that just because your preferred mental model is an abstract algebraic one where you build an abstract model that can apply to multiple situations doesn’t mean that such an architecture is best for every situation.
The article talks very clearly about the system and social constraints that it is optimizing for architecturally and ‘turning everything into a fold’ doesn’t immediately strike me as helping to meet the fast-build-feedback needs of the deep contributors and easy-and-safe-to-hack-in-modules needs of the weekend warrriors, which is what are described as the goals of the architecture.
But it also doesn’t strike me as very clearly not the case that the architecture has some of the features you’re describing.
It feels rather like you have a pet mental model which you think all architecture should subscribe to, and… I’m sorry but that seems naive.
I am trying to show 1) software architectures are useful and 2) if you abstract them you can find principles and relationships that allow you to transfer them to different domains, and transform them into different models.
The article spends most of its time discussing social context in which architecture is developed (I agree it is important, but not everything) and in general downplays the utility of learning about software architecture (e.g. "“software design” is something best learned by doing", and later suggests there is little useful writing on software architecture).
And when you try to prevent that IoC from leaking into the domain too much, the design often starts to look like hexagonal architecture.
Programming often feels like inventing a new form, but in the end we tend to converge on the shapes that previous programmers already discovered.
nevertheless, I often deceive myself into thinking that I am inventing a new design. In reality, I am usually just being shaped by the IoC model imposed by the framework and by the pressure of business requirements.
Only the scale changes. Similar problems tend to leave similar structures behind.
Sometimes it feels as if earlier generations of programmers have already solved so many of the important problems that all that remains for me is rediscovery.
But I do not want mere rediscovery. I want to create a new kind of problem. Still, in front of the solidity of established engineering, my small mind sometimes feels as if there is no place left for me.