Post-Architecture: An Open Approach to Software Engineering

For a while I described myself as a software engineer and architect. But the word “architect” always struck me as a bit of a misnomer; the main reason I used it was for lack of a better word. Today I think I found that word: post-architect.

The reason “architect” felt off to me is twofold: First there is a bit of a stigma around it. The term “architecture astronauts” quickly comes to mind. Now I’m not a big believer in putting people into boxes, and using a term that will encourage others to put me into a box isn’t a great start. But the second part of it is that I don’t even believe in software architecture as a separate discipline per se. Or at least, that’s not how I practice it.

There’s a lot of different architectures for different software projects. How do you pick the right one? If you’re building the next CRUD application, you may have an easy time here, but if you’re working in a startup and you’re building something more exploratory, the decision can be a challenging one. A gamble even. For me, there’s certain software engineering principles I gravitate towards, but I certainly don’t have a favorite architecture. I don’t even particularly like designing an architecture. What do I like? I like building products and solving problems.

At this point, you might almost start to think architecture isn’t really my jam, so why did I put it on my resume to begin with? Well, I do have hands-on experience building complex software products from the ground up and developing and maintaining them for many years after. That means living with the technology choices I make for many years, and adapting the software to remain scalable, maintainable and extensible. If that doesn’t involve architecture, I don’t know what else does.

Back when I was younger, I used to have a more lofty attitude towards architecture. It appeared as if good architecture was the Holy Grail of software engineering that once attained would guide engineering principles, solve technical debt, and be, on its own, a thing of beauty. Except that it didn’t really turn out to be that unattainable, and when I held it in my hands it turned out that it was just a cup. Another tool to be used like any other, and the mystical search had just been smoke and mirrors.

As I wrote in MVP: The Most Valuable Programmer: “The less code you need to solve your problem, the better.” If you start out by creating an architecture, you will start by writing a lot of code and solving very few problems. Moreover, you’ll be solving problems you don’t have yet.

When I started my previous job, I was asked what architecture I was going to use. The job before that I had indeed started with nice diagrams and overviews. But in hindsight, that had provided little value: Both were quickly outdated when reality turned out to be more intricate. So this time I made a conscious decision to not bother. I answered: I’ll just keep it simple and we’ll take it from there.

And that turned out to be the best decision I could have made. Most of us have heard of the KISS principle, but this was the biggest validation of it I have witnessed in my career. Not only did we build an impressive architecture, we built it without foresight. Because it wasn’t needed. All along the way, we just built the pieces that we needed and moved on. And every time pain points showed up, we refactored and improved. Lather, rinse, repeat.

To an architecture astronaut, parts of the functionality we delivered may have looked like a hackjob. But that was okay, because whenever this was the case, it meant that part of the codebase had no fixed architecture yet. And as long as the architecture isn’t fixed yet, you can’t violate it. It’s open. Open to modification, open to improvement, open to refactoring. Even open to be thrown away if the functionality isn’t validated.

Of course, the deeper you went into the system, the more fixed the architecture became. That’s natural. But it became fixed after validation, after implementing various use cases, after refactorings to make sure it would handle future use cases as well as the ones that had come before. A single use case should not define an architecture. And at least if you care about exploratory development, architecture should not lead product development, it should trail it. First you define your use cases, then you build implementations. And then you validate. Architecture comes after.

None of that is to say there are no projects that would benefit from a more traditional approach to architecture. If you’re doing a waterfall project and/or your requirements are well-defined upfront, this post may not really apply to you. But for startup environments like the ones I’ve witnessed, I think this approach deserves a word on its own.

This is what I will call Post-Architecture.

Update: I’ve also written a follow-up, in case you want to know more about what Post-Architecture is and isn’t.