[cc81]

I get this issue and I share the frustration but is this really a comment on the article posted?

In this case we seem to be talking about huge military projects like GPS or Drones and that there is a divide between the hardware parts and the software parts that might have made sense in the past when the interfaces between the hardware were simpler and software was mostly internal. But now when software is such a big part you need to involve software people earlier looking at the bigger picture from the beginning. It will also drive how hardware will be developed, i.e. what you can do with software will drive how you should develop your autonomous military drone fleet.

[amelius]

The title should have said software architecture, not software architects. Then there wouldn't be this discussion.

[freddie_mercury]

Or someone could read the first paragraph of the article instead of writing comments based on headlines.

[dmoy]

Yea I don't get a huge number of the comments in this thread. The article was pretty specific in what it was talking about, which seems to be not what people are talking about here.

[shkkmo]

The examples given are all defense projects, but the article does not ever limit its claims to defense projects. Its thesis is stated and re-stated in general terms and it consistently makes broad claims like:

> Today and into the future the best way to ensure that a new system's software architecture supports needed capabilities and also system evolvability is to involve software-knowledgeable personnel--specifically software architects--in the early system decisions about breaking up a system into acquirable parts. At this early stage, many software problems are either caused or avoided, and software architects are needed to ensure the latter.