Auf der Suche nach Bildern von Falling Water (DEM kanonischen Beispiel DES amerikanischen Architekten des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts) zufällig auf Querverweise zwischen (Gebäude-)Architektur und Software-Architektur gelandet.
FallingWater und Visiting Falling Water. Leider scheint dieser Wiki nicht wirklich offen zu sein, lahm zu liegen, whatever. Schade. Laufen scheinbar interessante Diskussionen:
Zitate:
How do we build functional, beautiful and personal software that the user will want to live in?We want to put our own personal touch (or body and soul) into the software we build. Software which is characterless is lifeless and uninhabitable.
Customers are often short-sighted about what they think they want. They don't see the problems which they may encounter down the road. They may not understand how the program addresses their domain. Often, user configurability can make the program a mess. Give the user too much rope and...
Unintentional use of the program can reflect poorly upon the architect. A program may be designed to only work in one particular way, but the customer wants questionable features added that may address problems the program was never meant to solve.
Therefore, (unfortunately) we build Falling Waters. We build high art that looks good to the user, impresses the user, engages the user and doesn't allow the user to screw it up. We know what is best. After all, we have spent dozens of years building software. How can a neophyte customer know what he wants?
We put a lot of time into building our software to perform its tasks quickly and elegantly. User should feel happy (and perhaps privileged) to use the product of our labors. We will lead them into software nirvana (if they would only let us).
---------------
Worse, FallingWater as a home is not a success. The conceit of building it around a waterfall is lovely, but the materials chosen for the rooms do not cope well with the high humidity and the house is a perpetual battleground for mildew and water damage.
---------------
Apparently, more than one of Wright's designs had problems in practice.
---------------
Yes, they did. In his 560 buildings, Wright was pioneering new techniques, using steel and glass in ways no one had ever conceived before, bringing about entirely new ways of thinking about architecture itself (see OrganicArchitecture). You can't do big things successfully without making big mistakes.... if Architecture has anything to teach Software a study of Wright is invaluable.
---------------
I disagree. SometimesWeHaveToBuildaFallingWater to advance the state of the art and show the users not what is best for today, but what is possible for tomorrow.
Siehe auch:: who needs (software) architects
Fazit:
Alles was gut ist an egomanischen Architekten (und alles, was sie typischerweise an Mist bauen) lässt sich analog auf Software-Architekturen (und vermutlich ähnlich konzeptionelle Tätigkeiten) übertragen.Bin mir nur nicht sicher, ob das für oder gegen egomanische Architekten spricht ...
Übrigens interessanter Wikipedia-Eintrag zum Thema (ohne Bezüge zur Software-Architektur).
Recent Comments