Is software architecture more art or science?
Discussion
architecture alone has battled the same question for centuries
it's experience. give or take. prolly why there's now ux/ui guys.
Yes, absolutely.
And that's one of the most significant problems--devs develop art, but users (often) want something else...they don't appreciate the art for what it is...
It depends. if you are maintaining Windows for instance, it is kind of architecture but if you are innovating, it may be science and even Art. Think about Nostr realm!
It's more art.
No one wants to hire a software architect that's really good at reproducing existing architectures. No one pays top dollar for a "just released!" Mona Lisa either 🤣
it's an art that requires a lot of experience with everything that goes into it
you have to have substantial experience as an engineer and know your way around design patterns and algorithms to be able to architect, because these are the ingredients
For non-tech guy like me it’s more black magic then a science 🤣
Optimizing things is always science or better, a methodology. Programming is a creative form of expression. Maybe the most creative one. But not everything creative is art.
IMO It’s both but more science than art. Software architecture can be “aesthetically” pleasing or “appealing” whilst being based on science.
I think both. You need science to code but the result is art by itself.
In fact everything, is neither art nor science, it’s all just brute force experimentation and the replication of what works.
Is there a difference between art and science?
Define art
Everything that goes from nothing to something is art imo
Wrong question.
The conception of the idea is art. The "making it work" is the application of craft.
Science is concerned with the search for truth.
It should emerge through iteration. It’s just a result of process.
art?
It's tinkering, so probably art.