Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software Architecture Guide

martinfowler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 303 posts

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#41

Post by notus »

randomcarbloke wrote: post #10
blub wrote: post #7

Whenever I see yet another article by Martin Fowler, Kent Beck, Robert Martin & co I ask myself - where is the evidence for what they are preaching? What are the graphs based on? What is the evidence behind the proposed rules? These authors are clearly accomplished blog and book writers, but anyone whose software-related accomplishments are not open source or at least well known should have their statements scrutiniz…

Thank you. If I want to design excellent architecture I will crack open SICP and transpose it to the fabric of modern computing. I also take issue with much of what Fowler et al say, but that's another conversation.

SICP isn't going to teach you excellent architecture for large systems, it's going to teach you excellent architecture for small programs.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#42

Post by nafey »

fogetti wrote: post #36
blub wrote: post #7

Whenever I see yet another article by Martin Fowler, Kent Beck, Robert Martin & co I ask myself - where is the evidence for what they are preaching? What are the graphs based on? What is the evidence behind the proposed rules? These authors are clearly accomplished blog and book writers, but anyone whose software-related accomplishments are not open source or at least well known should have their statements scrutiniz…

I don't really understand your comment. Shows your ignorance to be honest: have you ever heard of active records? Or optimistic locking? Because these are VERY tangible software constructs and Martin Fowler for example wrote a whole book about them.

The GP was about software architecture styles proposed/endorsed by Fowler et al and not their general contribution to software. Keeping this in mind its fair to ask for data/studies backing their claims.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#43

Post by traderjane »

streetcat1 wrote: post #32
geofft wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question was about "research" in the meaning of quantitative scientific evidence that these proposed techniques make software delivery better in real-world conditions, not "research" in the sense of new ideas from academics. As a professional, I don't want UML because I've seen no evidence it actually helps. Show me relevant studies that it does and I will absolutely change my mind. (And there are plenty of thing…

Sure. So UML is based on two main research areas - UML class diagram is based on rational algebra theory. A correct UML class diagram should follow the same normalization roles as defined by Codd seminal paper - "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks". You can ask, how does Prof Codd knows that this is is the correct way to describe and implement data. Well this follow directly from set theory. Again…

geoftt isn’t asking whether metaphorical TLA+ is academically fruitful. He’s asking if Amazons et al. have _continued_ to use it, and whether there’s some volume of evidence attesting to this.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#44

Post by rhizome31 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #28
rhizome31 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You use your best judgement based on the context, as you usually do when developing software. The only thing you've gained by applying a documented pattern is a bit of help to write your commit message :-)

> You use your best judgement based on the context This isn't how science is supposed to work. I work on programming language performance - when I say something could be implemented in a faster way, people don't just say 'yeah using my best judgement that'll be faster', they ask me to prove it. Otherwise I'm laughed off the stage. Why is it different for these people?

I might be wrong, but did Fowler pretend to follow the scientific method?

I work on developing business web applications and Fowler's work has been very helpful to me, especially when I was a beginner. I still sometimes refer to PoEAA when picking up a framework that implements a pattern described there. However I'd be surprised if Fowler had anything useful to teach to someone working in your field.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#45

Post by streetcat1 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #22
streetcat1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So first, you should read their books for concrete code. Martin books, for example "refactoring" or "Enterprise architecture" actually have good code examples. The same apply for kent beck early work on smalltalk (you can look at Junit) or his early work on the HotDraw editor (which was the source of many of the pattern in the Design Pattern book). Kent was one of the first adopter of smalltalk at the early 80 is tec…

I can see 'before' and 'after' code in their books. How do I know the 'after' code is any better in practice?

I think that the main issue here is to define what is better. For example. If I am creating a new startup and have money for only two months - "better" in this case is rushed out code (whatever that means). I.e. the software have no future in any case, if it is not delivered on time.

However, if I develop radiology machine. Better in this case is very exact state machine description, otherwise I can kill patients.

In those author specific case, we are talking about business system in the enterprise. The "better" here is how fast and easy I can change those system, since I get new requirements every week.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#46

Post by billfruit »

gunnihinn wrote: post #38
billfruit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally dislike building arguments on top of statistics, rather than on theory which to my eye almost always looks more convincing. With statistics it is as if the burden is passed on to the reader to check the veracity and validity of the said numbers, where as if it is an argument constructed out of theory, the whole of it is present there for the reader to judge intrinsically on its own merits.

That restricts you to mathematics, logic or philosophy. Engineering, or the rest of the world, operates _at best_ on statistics.

Programming in general and Software correctness does not depend upon statistical arguments, so perhaps such a view could be taken for software engineering too.

Also even considering aesthetics and elegance, I find use of statistics to power a reasoning, ungainly, compared with other means of arguing the same thing.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#47

Post by chrisseaton »

rhizome31 wrote: post #44
chrisseaton wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You use your best judgement based on the context This isn't how science is supposed to work. I work on programming language performance - when I say something could be implemented in a faster way, people don't just say 'yeah using my best judgement that'll be faster', they ask me to prove it. Otherwise I'm laughed off the stage. Why is it different for these people?

I might be wrong, but did Fowler pretend to follow the scientific method? I work on developing business web applications and Fowler's work has been very helpful to me, especially when I was a beginner. I still sometimes refer to PoEAA when picking up a framework that implements a pattern described there. However I'd be surprised if Fowler had anything useful to teach to someone working in your field.

> did Fowler pretend to follow the scientific method

His company calls him a 'scientist' - a 'chief scientist' no less - https://www.thoughtworks.com/profiles/martin-fowler and presumably bills accordingly.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#48

Post by manojlds »

blub wrote: post #7

Whenever I see yet another article by Martin Fowler, Kent Beck, Robert Martin & co I ask myself - where is the evidence for what they are preaching? What are the graphs based on? What is the evidence behind the proposed rules? These authors are clearly accomplished blog and book writers, but anyone whose software-related accomplishments are not open source or at least well known should have their statements scrutiniz…

I used to work at ThoughtWorks and Martin Fowler's inputs are based on his interactions with many many ThoughtWorks' project teams.

When he visited my team for one of those learnings discussions, I was amazed with the way he was able to absorb and present the same things we were learning in a much different and easier to understand manner.

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#49

Post by streetcat1 »

geofft wrote: post #40
streetcat1 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. So UML is based on two main research areas - UML class diagram is based on rational algebra theory. A correct UML class diagram should follow the same normalization roles as defined by Codd seminal paper - "A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks". You can ask, how does Prof Codd knows that this is is the correct way to describe and implement data. Well this follow directly from set theory. Again…

That's, again, not what I'm asking. I'm not asking for the theoretical underpinnings of why this is a good way to represent 200-500 classes. I'm asking why, if I and two coworkers need to code up 200-500 classes by next month to meet a promise to a customer, spending time on UML will make the customer happier. I have a programming language that itself has strong theoretical underpinnings. I also have a pretty good hu…

First, I must say that the inventors of UML saw it as the last layer. The grand vision was a complete code generation from UML diagrams. And this was the overall grand vision that drove OO in general. I think that this is was happening now with the "low code" startups.

The whole idea is to separate the global decisions (which are hard to change) - e.g. architecture, what classes, what each class do, from the local one (e.g. which data structure to use). So you would use UML for the global decisions, and than make programming the classes almost mechanical.

Of course the customer do not see that. The customer see the user interface, and if the overall use cases are implemented correctly. Hence using those tool might help or not.

Lets take architecture for example, why do people use an architect ?. Why does architect needs diagrams? Will the owner care of the architect use diagrams?

Re: Software Architecture Guide

#50

Post by vfc1 »

scarface74 wrote: post #15
chrisseaton wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some of these speakers, I’ve literally never seen any evidence that they’ve written a single line of code. Why should we listen to Fowler? What large successful projects has he created using his ideas are there that I can look at? Where’s the data behind his slides? It’s all just talk talk talk. I’d listen to someone like Chris Lattner talk about how to design and write software because I can see whatever approac…

Chris Lattner knows how to write system software and compilers which are completely separate beasts from the typical bespoke enterprise or software as a service apps that most developers write every day.

Exactly, many times these famous authors advocate for practices that make sense for building compilers and frameworks or libraries, but that make little sense for building applications.

Building applications is very different, because an application is the very end of the software tree dependency. Some practices make sense for both types of software, but many others don't and some of these authors don't seem to be able to make the difference.

Post reply on HN