I hate the epithet "architecture astronauts." It smacks of anti-intellectualism. We wouldn't say the same thing about actual architects: we would never deride Frank Gehry for building the http://www.guggenheim.org/bilbao saying, "wow what a waste of time, why didn't he just duct tape it... he would have finished sooner!" Physical architecture is about function as well as form; the Bilbao Guggenheim is not just a work of art, it's a highly functional building. Software architecture is similar in that better designs are more functional, more easily understood, and more easily maintained.
Not everyone is Frank Gehry, but working architects can learn from him just as we working programmers can learn from Bob Martin.
I would deride Frank Gehry. I've only been to one of his buildings, but it struck me as gratuitously zany: a very expensive and confusing way to do what could have been done better with a good ol' roughly rectangular box.
Many of those classic rectangularish buildings are beautiful. Their beauty is not the kind that stuns you for a week and then becomes annoying. It's the kind that is comfortable to be around, and you appreciate more and more as you spend years living with it.
A particular instance of Frank Gehry's work may not meet your approval, but would you go so far as to condemn the methodology of the sort of thing that is Frank Gehry's craft? The motives? The pursuit?
With considerable uncertainty because I haven't spent much time with his buildings (maybe there is an "aha!" moment waiting for me), yes. The motive appears to be, "How pointlessly weird can I get?" Part of the method seems to be, "Let's make this EXPENSIVE."
I would deride Frank Gehry... The motive appears to be, "How pointlessly weird can I get?"
I'm sorry you don't like Frank Gehry. But surely you're not saying, categorically, that software architecture is pointless?
I'm making that point that there may be good design or bad design, but we should not characterize design itself as harmful-- which is what is implied by pitting "duct tapers" against "architecture astronauts."
But surely you're not saying, categorically, that software architecture is pointless?
Not at all, only that Frank Gehry might be a poor analogy to enlighten people about the value of software architecture and design. "Duct tapers good" vs. "architecture astronauts bad" is surely a false dichotomy and a horrible analysis of the situation. Here's an example that might shed better light on the real situation: Microsoft is crawling with duct tapers, and Apple takes design seriously. Microsoft is much wealthier, but I prefer to use Apple products, and I wouldn't want to work at Microsoft.
Thank you. Finally, a succinct exposition of my own reaction to this phenomenon. Not enough programmers in the contemporary API-driven Lego-block culture give nuanced thought to form.
Not everyone is Frank Gehry, but working architects can learn from him just as we working programmers can learn from Bob Martin.