11–20 of 34 posts
Reminds me very much of the Volere Requirements Spec template[1]. There are many ways to Rome, but remember, Rome wasn't build in a day (or with a single architecture plan). [1] https://www.volere.org/templates/volere-requirements-specifi...
Reminds me very much of the Volere Requirements Spec template[1]. There are many ways to Rome, but remember, Rome wasn't build in a day (or with a single architecture plan). [1] https://www.volere.org/templates/volere-requirements-specifi...
i remember listening to a German-language podcast with the arc42 authors and they did mention volere. I forgot about the mutual history, but I think there was some resonance.
The reference to the second is mangled and appears in the text as "[docs^]".
Damn, this is really excellent. Over the course of my career I've written many tech specs, plans, one pagers, six pagers, functional requirements docs, ... etc. Each has been missing something, been too verbose, had sections that really don't integrate well. It's nice to see something a little more cohesive and rationalized. Even if I don't ever use Arc42 explicitly in the future, this is a great reference of what th…
- The "Building block view" is really the high level Structural Design. I tend to use structural decomposition to relay this information, iteratively breaking down into subsystems, components, etc. For this reason I prefer the term Structural. - The "Runtime view" is really the Behavioral Design of the system, the sum of behaviors of a system is what you see at runtime.
I wonder if the terminology chosen for arc42 comes from a more academic or earlier time in SW architecture and design.
I'm also a fan of the C4 Model[1] for visualization. So I think I'm going to try to incorporate the two together, like, utilize arc42 for a formal and disciplined approach to architecture documentation coupled with the informative visual paradigm of C4 Landscape, Context, Containers, and Components.
Many of my documents do indeed have a similar layout for design and it is nice to see efforts like this to create more rigor in SW architecture. As a practitioner (and being opinionated), I have these observations: - The "Building block view" is really the high level Structural Design. I tend to use structural decomposition to relay this information, iteratively breaking down into subsystems, components, etc. For thi…
All the same, it’s great to see the approach being promoted because there’s a very real need for ADD’s to exist.
I feel like I'm missing something.