Monthly Archives: October 2016

This morning I saw a tweet from Simon Brown that that triggered some odd memories. The tweet was:

And, of course, we no longer live in a world where architects create a “logical view” that developers should go and implement … somehow ……
24/10/16 10:50

I remember how the architecture role was described in such terms. Where e's role was to dictate how it should work so the developers could assemble. What they forgot to ask them self was probably what view the developers were suppose to work on? Was that the irrational solution to the logical view the architect had delivered?

When turning the "logical view" on it's head like this it is not very logical. I know it wasn't supposed to be so. But language has a tendency to work it's way into our minds. It forms our way of thinking of things and eventually our way to deal with them. Regardless if it's rational or not. When I saw that tweet this morning it became apparent where at least some of the misconception around software architecture comes from. The way we describe the "logical view" just being a symptom of a deeper problem.

I think it comes down to the idea that we should create things using a top down structure. Using the control structures we are used to. Management wants some kind of software. They'll get the architect to design it, to create the "logical view". Only then can they trust it to the developers. They are probably not even aware that most of the unknowns and risks are in the hands of the developers.

But we know software don't work like that. I actually think most of us also know that nothing else does either. It's a flawed view on humanity that makes us think good work can be done top down. It becomes especially apparent in complex situations such as software development and research. But I don't think it works well anywhere. The rational way to go about getting good work done is bottom up. Letting everyone involved feel responsible and have the mandate to do what changes they think are necessary to get the job done.

Oh well, enough of the rant. And thanks Simon for reminding me of the idiocy in some of the software architecture jargon.

Last time we held an Øresund Software Craftsmanship Group meet-up was probably in December 2015. Now, closing in on a year since the last meet-up, it's perhaps time to say something about why I haven't organised any more.

To run a user group like ØSCG can be very rewarding. But it also takes a lot of time and energy. There's a whole host of things that has to be done for each event. Planing topics, finding speakers, preparing content, market it amongst other things. Then you've got to attending it as the host and sometimes the speaker or facilitator. So even with the fantastic help of FooCafe who takes care of the ground servis it eats up a lot of time.

I had to take that time and energy from somewhere. So my family got to carry the cost. After running ØSCG for a couple of years it became very clear to me that that was not a price I was prepared to pay. This was also something my children had been clearly pointing out to me had I only listened. In that context I felt that what I gained in return did not even come close to what was payed.

But I did not want ØSCG to die. It was an important forum where we as programmers could learn the craft. A craft I find lacking much to often when I go to work. It is really sad that I could not find people who could step up and take the lead in in the community after me. And even though I did get help this was not nearly enough for me to keep it going.

However, I don't think ØSCG is dead yet. I think it's in hibernation. Waiting for someone to come and wake it from it's slumber. Someone with the energy, passion and time needed. It may be me if I can convince my employer to make the investment needed. Or it can be you. If you are interested to start the effort up again I'd be more then happy to help you get started. I will most likely also be involved as long as I don't have to be the lead. So the brand, and the community, is there should you feel the calling.

Last, but not least, would it not have been for Louis Hansen, Pavel Rozenblioum and Mathias Beckius ØSCG would not have carried on for a couple of years. It would have died much sooner. And it would not have been as much fun as it was. Thank you for your help and passion.

So sleep well ØSCG, until spring comes for you and some passionate soles wakes you from your hibernation.