Should application architects write code?

Answer 1

I wonder why nobody has mentioned the code reviews or pair programming which can replace coding.

I spend much more time reading the code and solving problems with my coworkers than coding. This give me almost the same understanding of the code, its structure and complexity as writing it myself and is much less time consuming. When I code, I do that for fun or to explore new technologies (This is the only place where I've found coding useful).

Answer 2

There are architects and there are IT strategists. If you are leading an integration project involving 500 people across multiple departments then no, it's going to get in the way. If you are leading the design and implementation of up to a few 10s of people on a development project, then yes. Otherwise you will be far less likely to have the appropriate insight into the day to day reality of working with your architecture.

Answer 3

This standard Developers answer is that an Architect should also be coding. But it's a kind of Developer that puts technology first. But I tend to disagree. Yes it's beneficial to have some coding skills, in order to be able to review the code.

But the only thing an Architect does is bring together the business requirements with the implementation. And in our case the code. If you have a seriously complex system, you cannot be coding and doing Architecture at the same time, cause you're operating at too many different abstraction levels.

Instead you should be able to rely on the Developers. They should be able to describe the aspects of the implementation, and how it fits in the business requirement that you have pointed out to them. What technology is chosen is the Architects decision, but to come to that decision he has to do research or use past experience. That doesn't mean he doesn't talk to the Developers, or let them investigate a specific technology to see whether the Architecture really works.

Answer 4

Every project I've worked on that has included an architect that did not spend a significant portion of their time hands on with the code has had problems because of that absence of hands-on knowledge.

That includes the projects where I was that architect :-)

It's now a personal big red flag.

I agree with all the arguments in favour of architects who code. The arguments against don't hang together well for me.

The code needs to abstract the high-level concepts as well as the low in an application. Unless the design and code are integrated at all levels the solution is going to be less than optimal.

As for "Coding is a detailed oriented, heads-down funtion which is at odds with the risk management, broad view nature of architecture" - in my experience a broad view - and risk management especially - make for better coders not worse :-)

"Architecture is about technical risk management and not implementation" - not it isn't. It's about risk management and implementation (and a bunch of other stuff).

"Architecture is about leadership. It's difficult to lead from behind" - why does coding put you behind? Personally I find that the best place to lead is with the people you're working with.

Answer 5

Since everyone here is a coder, the favourites gotta be the hells-yeah answer - and you'll get no disagreement from me.

But the finer grained answer is more correct in my opinion, because it appropriately values domain expertise. People who know little bout software, but just use it are so valuable.

How the architectural roles are divided up seems to depend on the size and nature of the organization.

If I had it my way, I'd give the client a role of Story Architect if they write good, useful, detailed stories and use-cases.

Answer 6

An application architect must be able to define an application architecture, design the application, implement the patterns and coach other to code. If you can't do those things then you are not an application architect.