Back to [[conference:committee:proposals-2013]]\\
\\
**Title**: Real Architecture-Engineering or Pompous Bullshit?\\
**Proposer**: [[2013:tom_gilb]]\\
**Type**: Presentation\\
**Duration**: 90 minutes\\
**Description**: 
What should software architecture be? How is it related to major critical software qualities and performance, to costs and constraints? How do we decide exactly what to propose, and how do we estimate and prove it is justified. How can an organization qualify their own architects, and know the difference between the frauds and the experts? Would real architects recognize what software architects know and do?\\
\\
We believe that most activity, going under the name architecture, is NOT real. Current Software architecture is no more real architecture than hackers are software engineers.\\
\\
If we are just informally throwing out nice ideas, let us call ourselves Software Brainstormers. But if we are dealing with large scale, serious, and critical systems, then we need to stop using cabin-building methods and start using skyscraper designing methods. We need a serious architecture and engineering approach.\\
\\
Summary:

• defining architecture properly : even the standards are wrong

• what is bad architecture

• real architecture responsibilities who does what to whom

• the technical disciplines we need; quantification, estimation measurement of multiple qualities and costs

• architectural decomposition: a value basis

• software design, the same process, a different level

• the role of iterative feedback in verifying architecture

• The Architecture Manifesto: (advice for the revolution\\
\\