As with other commenters, I feel like Software Architecture is a bit of an anti-pattern. Software just isn't like buildings in the end. The analogues of space and physics of materials etc are not solid enough in the software world that you can have someone disconnected from the "builders" lay out the whole building and then hand over the designs to be "built". As with agile approaches etc., there is a need for a far more incremental and iterative approach needed for most software projects and even if in practice that is how the architect role works, it is unhelpful to have it named in a way that implies a "waterfall" type process that you would see in building design.
I think most of the advice in the article is actually reflecting this sentiment and in my organisation I am deliberately not creating roles that bear "architect" in the title. The software industry should move on from this term, I think.
> that you can have someone disconnected from the "builders" lay out the whole building and then hand over the designs to be "built"
Agreed that this isn't going to work. I wouldn't write off the whole notion of having architecture and architects, though; I've known a handful of architects who absolutely improved the systems they worked on, but they were deeply involved in the whole process and part of their job was precisely to alter the system as needed.
Right, you just throw together angular, babel, webpack, bootstrap, typescript, spinners, redis, zeromq, recaptcha and nosql - and that's your blog's "architecture".
I think most of the advice in the article is actually reflecting this sentiment and in my organisation I am deliberately not creating roles that bear "architect" in the title. The software industry should move on from this term, I think.