Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!psu-cs!omepd!jimv
From: jimv@omepd (Jim Valerio)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Architect's Trap
Message-ID: <487@omepd>
Date: Sun, 8-Mar-87 19:35:46 EST
Article-I.D.: omepd.487
Posted: Sun Mar  8 19:35:46 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Mar-87 20:12:25 EST
References: <1400@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: jimv@omepd.UUCP (Jim Valerio)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro
Lines: 23

In article <1400@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> steves@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM
(Steve Schlesinger) writes:
> The Architects Trap - After completing a careful and clean
> design, architects want to improve it with many new ideas.

I dislike this characterization of the trap.  It's not obvious to me
that an architect's job is ever done.  Consider the analogy of
Constitutional Amendments.  The "architect" of the Constitution
completed a careful and clean design for a government, but that didn't
mean that further improvements didn't become important and necessary.

The world is a diverse place, and it is very difficult to understand
all the ways a particular architecture might be used.  You can't blame
an architect for not knowing everything in advance, or trying to
correct an oversight when possible.

I believe that a good architect is continually looking for improvements,
and arranges to get them incorporated into the design whenever there is
sufficient justification for the changes.  A bad architect is one who
doesn't justify changes, or one who out of hand rejects suggested
improvements to "a careful and clean design".
--
Jim Valerio	{verdix,intelca!mipos3}!omepd!jimv, jimv@omepd.intel.com