[Buttons840]

They should also accept most of the blame for any problems, because anything higher level than "my code won't compile because the syntax is wrong" is an architecture problem.

You want to be the architect and me just a lowly coder? Ok, I'll fix my own compile errors, all other problems are on you.

[sb8244]

Architects shouldn't be dictating your class structure or code choices. That's a code concern and not of the system. If the system has fundamental issues around performance, scalability, extension, or security, then it's probably on the architect.

This attitude seems to be the default "holier than though" attitude about architects. I think it's more likely that you would encounter pragmatism when the company culture is healthy. Unhealthy company or engineering team and there's no way to tell whether it would be good or bad

[ramraj07]

Only issue is, a bad dev can still make mistakes that compile and run but fail at the first hint of trouble.

A friend used to say, "every line of code you write, you make at least one, if not more decisions about the architecture of the program" and I totally agree. So I can still see a really good architect being betrayed by a below mediocre engineering team even if the architecture is sound.