Simple architecture is best architecture
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
Not true. The simplest architecture is monolithic code: spaghetti with some linguini and a little bit of fusilli added for good measure. And no-one with any experience of the real world will go with that for anything bigger than a throwaway application. The architecture to use is the simplest that fits the application requirements: and that varies depending on what the application does, what language(s) it is coded in, and what it has to interface to. Perhaps also, the experience and quality of the developers. There is no one architecture which fits all circumstances, despite what the disciples of any one system will tell you.
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
To follow up on Griffs post. Architecture should be appropriate. Oversimplified is as bad as overly complex.
Politicians are always realistically manoeuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers. Buckminster Fuller
-
To follow up on Griffs post. Architecture should be appropriate. Oversimplified is as bad as overly complex.
Politicians are always realistically manoeuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers. Buckminster Fuller
Perfect ... :)
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
-
Not true. The simplest architecture is monolithic code: spaghetti with some linguini and a little bit of fusilli added for good measure. And no-one with any experience of the real world will go with that for anything bigger than a throwaway application. The architecture to use is the simplest that fits the application requirements: and that varies depending on what the application does, what language(s) it is coded in, and what it has to interface to. Perhaps also, the experience and quality of the developers. There is no one architecture which fits all circumstances, despite what the disciples of any one system will tell you.
Yes Sir.... :) :) :) :) :) :)
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
-
Suvabrata Roy wrote:
what do you think?
That is about time for the machines to write their own code.
Microsoft ... the only place where VARIANT_TRUE != true
-
Not true. The simplest architecture is monolithic code: spaghetti with some linguini and a little bit of fusilli added for good measure. And no-one with any experience of the real world will go with that for anything bigger than a throwaway application. The architecture to use is the simplest that fits the application requirements: and that varies depending on what the application does, what language(s) it is coded in, and what it has to interface to. Perhaps also, the experience and quality of the developers. There is no one architecture which fits all circumstances, despite what the disciples of any one system will tell you.
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
Simple always wins the day, and is the mark of a decent programmer.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
-
Given that whoever it was you quoted spoke in pre-school English, I'm somewhat surprised that he had anything at all to say about architecture -- unless, of course, he was talking about Lego.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
I actually met an architect once who referred to their architecture as Lego blocks which they could stack to build dream houses, but also boats etc.. In the end; The boat sank & the dream house was too small for even a lego dummy. Hope he didn't had the same when he grew up when he was playing with his own lego. He would have been bullied a lot :D
-
I don't agree. Monolithic architectures lead as you say to spaghetti code and that is anything but simple.
Regards, Rob Philpott.
It does, and the result isn't simple - but that's a result of the implementation, not the architecture. Monolithic coding is about as simple an architecture as you can get, since it doesn't define any structure to the design or code. Which is a large part of the problem! :laugh:
-
It does, and the result isn't simple - but that's a result of the implementation, not the architecture. Monolithic coding is about as simple an architecture as you can get, since it doesn't define any structure to the design or code. Which is a large part of the problem! :laugh:
As we're talking architechture, I like to think of this as building a house. The architecht needs to describe the bricks as well as the room layouts - so the architect is responsible. if he doesn't describe which bricks to use, then the builders may use seven different types and sizes of brick - leading to a spaghetti house.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
As we're talking architechture, I like to think of this as building a house. The architecht needs to describe the bricks as well as the room layouts - so the architect is responsible. if he doesn't describe which bricks to use, then the builders may use seven different types and sizes of brick - leading to a spaghetti house.
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
But then you get a kitchen that goes soggy if you over cook it... :laugh:
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
As simple as possible, but no simpler. I tend to get myself into trouble when my architecture becomes too complex.
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
There isn't one single architecture that solves all problems. It has to be analysed case by case. But I disagree that the simplest architecture is the one that should be used. Instead, the simplest architecture that solves the problem is the one that should be used, taking into account functional and non-functional requirements (scalability, performance, traceability, ...). Imagine your company builds a software product and sells it to customers. Each customer may buy one or more modules and may create custom tailored modules. If build this system with the simplest architecture you can think of, you are going to end up in a nightmare. You have to take into account the requirements and design a system that is modular and where components are decoupled and can be injected into it. Makes sense?
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
-
Not true. The simplest architecture is monolithic code: spaghetti with some linguini and a little bit of fusilli added for good measure. And no-one with any experience of the real world will go with that for anything bigger than a throwaway application. The architecture to use is the simplest that fits the application requirements: and that varies depending on what the application does, what language(s) it is coded in, and what it has to interface to. Perhaps also, the experience and quality of the developers. There is no one architecture which fits all circumstances, despite what the disciples of any one system will tell you.
OriginalGriff wrote:
a little bit of fusilli added for good measure
And not just any fusilli - Fusilli Jerry. Nothing else will do. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
But then you get a kitchen that goes soggy if you over cook it... :laugh:
.. and ou cant test it by throwing it against the wall...
MVVM # - I did it My Way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
Some one said
Quote:
"if your architecture is very simple ( in terms of developers will easily understand it) mean it very ordinary but if its complex ( That's mean complex architecture, not easy to understand, difficult to change) is best architecture."
I think architecture should be very simple and easy to understand, when you design an architecture that should be easy to implement, Secure (as Much as Required), easy to maintain, easy to change and up to the performance bench mark. :-O what do you think?
Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }
