Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. The Lounge
  3. Simple architecture is best architecture

Simple architecture is best architecture

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Lounge
designarchitectureperformancequestiondiscussion
22 Posts 14 Posters 0 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

    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.

    S Offline
    S Offline
    Suvabrata Roy 0
    wrote on last edited by
    #9

    Yes Sir.... :) :) :) :) :) :)

    Life is all about share and care... public class Life : ICareable,IShareable { // implements yours... }

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • A Argonia

      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

      C Offline
      C Offline
      CPallini
      wrote on last edited by
      #10

      :thumbsup: :laugh:

      Veni, vidi, vici.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

        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.

        R Offline
        R Offline
        Rob Philpott
        wrote on last edited by
        #11

        I don't agree. Monolithic architectures lead as you say to spaghetti code and that is anything but simple.

        Regards, Rob Philpott.

        OriginalGriffO 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • S Suvabrata Roy 0

          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... }

          R Offline
          R Offline
          Rob Philpott
          wrote on last edited by
          #12

          Simple always wins the day, and is the mark of a decent programmer.

          Regards, Rob Philpott.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • M Mark_Wallace

            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!

            J Offline
            J Offline
            JV9999
            wrote on last edited by
            #13

            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

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • R Rob Philpott

              I don't agree. Monolithic architectures lead as you say to spaghetti code and that is anything but simple.

              Regards, Rob Philpott.

              OriginalGriffO Offline
              OriginalGriffO Offline
              OriginalGriff
              wrote on last edited by
              #14

              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:

              "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
              "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt

              L 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

                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:

                L Offline
                L Offline
                Lost User
                wrote on last edited by
                #15

                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')

                OriginalGriffO 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L Lost User

                  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')

                  OriginalGriffO Offline
                  OriginalGriffO Offline
                  OriginalGriff
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #16

                  But then you get a kitchen that goes soggy if you over cook it... :laugh:

                  "I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
                  "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt

                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S Suvabrata Roy 0

                    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... }

                    P Offline
                    P Offline
                    PIEBALDconsult
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #17

                    As simple as possible, but no simpler. I tend to get myself into trouble when my architecture becomes too complex.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • S Suvabrata Roy 0

                      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... }

                      G Offline
                      G Offline
                      GustavoMartins
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #18

                      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?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • S Suvabrata Roy 0

                        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... }

                        H Offline
                        H Offline
                        H Brydon
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #19

                        The architecture you use should be the best that fits your needs.

                        Windows 8 is the resurrected version of Microsoft Bob. The only thing missing is the Fisher-Price logo. - Harvey

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

                          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.

                          R Offline
                          R Offline
                          Ravi Bhavnani
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #20

                          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

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • OriginalGriffO OriginalGriff

                            But then you get a kitchen that goes soggy if you over cook it... :laugh:

                            L Offline
                            L Offline
                            Lost User
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #21

                            .. 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')

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • S Suvabrata Roy 0

                              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... }

                              J Offline
                              J Offline
                              jschell
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #22

                              Suvabrata Roy wrote:

                              what do you think?

                              If things were simple to design I wouldn't make as much money as I do.

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              Reply
                              • Reply as topic
                              Log in to reply
                              • Oldest to Newest
                              • Newest to Oldest
                              • Most Votes


                              • Login

                              • Don't have an account? Register

                              • Login or register to search.
                              • First post
                                Last post
                              0
                              • Categories
                              • Recent
                              • Tags
                              • Popular
                              • World
                              • Users
                              • Groups