I frequently get questions about my opinion on the future of computing. Can anyone threaten the position of (current) hyper-scalers? Didn't the progress of computing (from a technological standpoint) become predictable and ... boring? Aren't the times of exciting breakthroughs over? Gosh, I don't think I have any mandate to claim...
A few days ago, I started reading "Semantic Software Design" [https://www.amazon.com/Semantic-Software-Design-Practical-Architects-ebook/dp/B07YCW51DJ] by Eben Hewitt. I haven't finished it yet, but I believe I can already state that it won't become my favourite book on software architecture ever (more about that in the forthcoming review...
There are so many myths about software architecture ... * that it's done once and there's no further cost associated * that if you do it properly, it will serve forever * that there's "the correct way to do it" & you measure correctness with "software architecture" aesthetics There's one more I find especially irritating:...
> This blog post is all about: cognitive bias (one particular one), how quickly we get used to "the new normal", how being insatiable when it comes to knowledge can make us ashamed, why we get annoyed when some junior pops up with "microservices now!" idea, why leader in the trenches...
> TL;DR Software Development technology adoption lifecycle [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cycle] is susceptible to the same rules that apply to any other high-tech. Market success is not guaranteed by sheer innovation, technical excellence or even product capabilities - it does require certain qualities, but also...
The idea of decomposing application into layers (logical vertical split) or tiers (physical vertical split) isn't new - it's bread'n'butter of systems architecture. Reasons for such a split are still the same (as they were in 90s, 80s & beyond): * to reduce complexity & separate concerns * to scale tiers independently * to enable...
