Who needs an architect?

Going back to the original idea of what architecture is, we can find that it points toward the design of the aesthetic and functionality of a building. Even if aesthetic does not fit in the definition for software architecture, it has a huge weight on traditional architecture it is comparable to any requirement that a software design must consider. As the author suggests, architecture might just be a fuzzy name for everything that is related to the design of the software.

The author gives away two definitions about architecture, one is related to the understanding of the design of a software system, the other on talks about it as a set of important decisions. The author states at the very end of the document that unlike building architecture, software does not have physical limitations, the limitations of software come from organization and design. The first definition presented in the reading completely ignores the design part as the understanding of senior developers could be centered towards those very old spaghetti coded systems. Personally I believe an architect must have a blend of both of those skills, as the understanding of how are things going to work is essential for decision making. An architect must be aware of which blocks would be components of the system and which would be just materials. Just like in physical architecture, if there are very specific requirements for a wall such as when you are building a music hall, then you should really focus on the design of those. Otherwise just build any wall that does the job that a wall is usually meant to do. 

While I agree with most of the article, I must say that just like in its analogue, software's infrastructure is limited to how much money is put on a project. Just like some fancy flats in London could create something that emulates a flying pool, abundant resources can be game changing in the ease of the design and maintenance of software.