[Kaveren]

> "There is no value in an architect who doesn’t code"

This is debatable. The OP almost certainly knows how to code, and I think you can still provide quite a lot of value even if all you do is architecture.

It's much like saying a building's architect is worthless if they're not also doing construction work. I don't buy it.

[basdp]

Buildings are still built using stones, wood, cement. That doesn't change much.

In my experience as a DevOps transformation expert, 'Architects' are mostly old devs that have been kicked upstairs. The whole world changes each year to an extreme. You have to get your feet wet.

[jimjimjim]

Shack - doesn't need an architect.

House - some do, some don't.

Commercial Building - yep.

Factory, Bridge or Infrastructure - you're insane if you don't.

Just like in construction, it depends on what you are building/expanding. Not all software is the same.

[basdp]

So you're calling (f.e.) Amazon a shack?

[jimjimjim]

And the Burj Khalifa doesn't need an architect?

Sometimes the system doesn't need it sometimes it does. Not all software systems are the same.

I personally think the architect role is to look at the big picture first rather than trying to dictate the minutiae.

[basdp]

The point is that an architect who doesn't 'code' (read: doesn't know how the practical implementation is done) doesn't know what he is designing. It's too abstract.

A structural architect is called the same, but is not really comparable. Apples and oranges. At the least because the Burj Khalifa is still built under the same physics model as they used 100 years ago.

[adaml_623]

A shanty town?