(no subject)

[juan_gandhi]

 "системная инженерия", Левеенчук 

Смысла в этом никакого нет, но продается; Левенчуку на хлеб с маргарином хватает.

 

Я, кстати, пробовал преподавать архитектуру софтвера; понял одну вещь - не существует такой дисциплины. Это примерно как преподавать науку "как написать новую симфонию".

 

Мы тогда обошлись обзором архитектур массы современных аппликаций; было поучительно. Но никакой там ни науки, ни "дисциплины" нету. Пока эти уебки что-то там городят, книжки пишут, прогресс убегает далеко вперед.

Comments

[sassa_nf]

It looks like you do not appreciate what makes this problem complex. Layers have nothing to do with it. The complexity of the functionality of the "layers" is extremely low, if you focus on the "layers".

The taxonomy of systems by their layers does not help to build a robust solution here. Try to remember that, it will be useful in the future.

[cross_join]

Désole mais je trouve la situation de changement de langage de discussion impolie et proposerais de vous attendre un(e) autre anglophone.
Veuillez agréer, Madame, Monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments distingués.

[juan_gandhi]

Quand on parle de ces choses en Anglais, tous les notions et termes devient plus claires. C'est pourquois moi aussie préfèrerais Anglais.

[sassa_nf]

On the contrary, I find it extremely fascinating that people can, and do, maintain conversations in the languages each of them prefers.

I find the notion of requiring the others to use one language you personally prefer absurd.

[juan_gandhi]

Hmm, right, it's not about layers at all. Layers help simplify the solution (or the problem), but it's not what the problem consists of.

[sassa_nf]

I find examples like these are actually a bit like switching the view from what the objects are, to how the arrows between them compose. You can talk about the meaning of objects, but the insight is in the structures formed by the arrows.

The diagrams spend a lot of time and dedicate a lot of space labelling the objects, but the arrows remain anonymous and rather abstract back and forth.