[kubb]

It doesn’t work like that. Your mistakes were unique to your experience and situation. You can’t extract them into abstract rules and make a book to give to people. They need to make their own mistakes. And they’ll find out that what was a mistake for you will work for them.

I wish you a lot of success in your publication though, may this be a good source of passive income and give you financial independence.

[acureau]

I promise you that there is some objectivity in software architecture, and that you can indeed extract useful information from books.

[kubb]

Remember, use composition over inheritance. Except if using inheritance makes sense ;)

[langcss]

Design patterns: composition inspite of inheritance

[meaboutsoftware]

Nice one!

[goostavos]

While I agree that people need to make mistakes (giving newbies room TO make those mistakes is an important part of mentorship imo), I couldn't disagree more with the idea that there's nothing to learn about architecture from a book.

A vast majority of the mistakes people make are avoidable ones stemming from ignorance. They're often missing the "why" part of architecture. "What does it mean for an architectural choice to be 'good'?" This can 100% be "book learned" and then mastered through the messy process of experience. You have to at least know the rules to play the game. Many people skip the "know" part.

[meaboutsoftware]

I partially agree with you- nothing is better than working on "your own" mistakes, but some mistakes often repeat in software architecture. Why not take advantage and not repeat them by learning from others' mistakes? :)

[breakfastduck]

Bizarre comment, of course there's value here