﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Ayende @ Rahien</title><link>http://ayende.com</link><description>Ayende @ Rahien</description><copyright>Copyright (C) Ayende Rahien  2004 - 2021 (c) 2026</copyright><ttl>60</ttl><item><title>Ayende Rahien commented on Architecture Advice: Scale the architecture to fit the application</title><description>simplistic and simple are not the same thing
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment7</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment7</guid><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:58:52 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Tim Barcz commented on Architecture Advice: Scale the architecture to fit the application</title><description>These two statements seem to contradict:
  
  
"Chose an overly simplistic architecture, and you can only scale the application complexity with great difficulty."
  
  
"Think and always start from the simplest thing that can possibly work."
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment6</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment6</guid><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 02:27:08 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Ryan Svihla commented on Architecture Advice: Scale the architecture to fit the application</title><description>This has bitten me in the rear more times than I count. Mainly because when I started developing I applied an Admin's mindset of "always being prepared" boyscout style to software development.
  
  
I had a couple of projects end up taking months longer than should have before I figured out I was doing something terribly wrong in my approach.  
  
  
Even now, I have to constantly guard against trivially adding a "simple feature" that creates an unnecessary overhead, and have slipped in a bad decision here and there.
  
  
I think this is only something a lot of us can only develop with experience, repetition, observation and a lot of self-honesty.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment5</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment5</guid><pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:55:18 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>j23tom commented on Architecture Advice: Scale the architecture to fit the application</title><description>Couldn't you write that six months ago ? ;)
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment4</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment4</guid><pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 23:49:47 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>configurator commented on Architecture Advice: Scale the architecture to fit the application</title><description>Yes, I hate it when that happens. When they tell you that in order to have a textbox in the UI have a maximum value you have to add that value to the database, the DAL, the data proxy, the entity, the business logic layer, the UI input data entity, the Service Interface and only then will you be able to access it - you know something is wrong.
  
  
And those variables always turn up as 0 in the first try because you forgot one of those pesky Entity1.Variable = Entity2.Variable lines.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment3</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment3</guid><pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:49:45 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Kyle Szklenski commented on Architecture Advice: Scale the architecture to fit the application</title><description>It has always pissed me off when people seem to try to make something as complicated as possible, whether to show off their skills or just because they don't know any better. It can really be a major killer for projects. I think we should make a TV show and call it, "When Architects Go Bad".
  
  
I find that a lot of people do that, too. They pile on a lot of incidental complexity without even thinking about what they're actually doing with the code (e.g. adding a database call where it doesn't belong, or using a database when what's really called for is a simple XML file, etc.). Once the incidental complexity adds up to critical mass, that's it - the project is a wash. No one can debug it, and it's time for a rewrite with less complex pieces, in my opinion.
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment2</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment2</guid><pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:33:47 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Patrick Smacchia commented on Architecture Advice: Scale the architecture to fit the application</title><description>What about just using Evolutionary Design?
  
[http://www.artima.com/intv/evolution.html](http://www.artima.com/intv/evolution.html)  
  
Frankly, I apply these ideas for many years with success.
  
</description><link>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment1</link><guid>http://ayende.com/3779/architecture-advice-scale-the-architecture-to-fit-the-application#comment1</guid><pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:05:39 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>