Should application architects write code?

Answer 1

Architecture is a core skill for software developers. There may be a few rare occasions when it might make sense for an architect not to code, but I can't recall ever encountering such occasions in my own experience.

The architect must either code on the project or at a bare minimum, be fully capable of coding on the project. The second part of this means that they have to be able to code using the tools and techniques being used by the rest of the team. (Without continuing to code, it must be very difficult to maintain these skills.)

Finally, when architects are responsible for choosing the tools and techniques to be used by others, they can not make such a choice well without actually using the proposed tools. In this scenario, the non-coding architect rapidly degenerates into a pointy-haired-boss with a pile of brochures on his desk.

Answer 2

Some times, they have to code. For instance, when the team is only one person.

In my opinion, they can code if they want but must not lose the big picture. A no go is to change the designed structures every day.

Answer 3

Just to give my two cents (and my vision of "architects")

I believe there are several types of architect, each in their own domain:

• business and functional architects: they are concern with business operations and functions workflow, and they actually should not ever code, because they have to be able to abstract themselves from any kind of implementation, and they must produce functional specifications which leave the technical solution open.

• applicative architects: they divide a functional domain (like "profit and losses analysis") into applications (like "portfolio processor", "launcher", "dispatcher", "gui"). They do not need to code, but they should be former coder in order to have a clear idea of technical challenges that their architectures must address. Their primary skill is not coding though, but listening to technical colleagues in order to choose the right solution. They will then produce technical implementation which must be implemented (coded).

• technical architects: they are in charge of choosing and/or implementing technical frameworks (those which are generic for any functional project, like KPI, logging, exception management), and they should absolutely code (and code well), since their components will be used by all the other functional teams.

• development architects (hey, that's me ;) ): in charge of development tools and processes, and technological surveys, they should code and love coding as well.

So I believe there is not just one answer: it depends on your architectural field and expertise: when it comes to 'application architects', I believe the three latter categories can have different coding experience...

Answer 4

I've come to believe that, more often than not, "implementation details" are not details (in the sense that many problems arise when you consider some specific implementation problems as mere details that could be disregarded as minutiae from an "architectural" perspective)