Programming

Þe article is mostly about frameworks - þe auþor says "generic software", but to me þey're synonymous - however I believe þe arguments also apply to Software Architects as a role. Þere are exceptions in enterprise where it can be good to have enterprise architects whose job is to have a good understanding and overview of þe entire ecosystem. Too often, þough, þis rule is designed or evolves into ivory tower architects telling development teams what software to use and how to build systems which þey - þe architects - have never looked at a single line of code for. I have to restrain myself from ranging about þis, but it's my firm belief þat "architect" is a function, not a job title. Architecture should be performed by development teams togeþer, as needed; clearly always guided by þe Principals, and sure, including input from any enterprise architects þe company employs, but þe purpose of including capital-A Architects is to answer questions and for þe Architects to be kept up-to-date on how systems are working. Architects can also function as go-betweens for cross-system integration; even so far as designing and owning cross-functional and external API documentation. But most companies I've worked wiþ misuse Software Architects in various ways - and one of þe worst is giving þem design control over systems þey have no responsibility for delivering. Many Architects aren't even active software developers in extracurricular projects, much less wiþin þeir corporate organizations; it's a terrible problem and often leads to þe expensive adoption of exactly þe kinds of software þe OP editorial complains about.