Fantastic talk, very interesting how you tie concepts of complexity, epistimological approaches and different roles in the software development process together. Thanks!
New personal favorite, I've been digging for the high level approach of Architecture and Software Engineering for a long time, with Kevlin Henney or IT - historical talks. This one just opened me a new window to look through. Incredible!
I love this talk connecting the fluidity of the real world / business goals / technology stacks and soul searching from the beginning on how to deal with the madness/reality as an software architect. Relating the tangible world into the software (intangible) was insightful that we are still on a journey.
Thank you for such an interesting talk! As a philosopher (of science) by training and architect by trade - I do see a lot to like here (I had been thinking of solution-patterns in terms of attractors in complex dynamic systems for a while, so it was especially lovely to see this analogy being employed in this talk). Thankfully, it seems that the fact that architecture is not about correctness but about being "circumspect" in one way or another is not really a paradigm shift - at least no C-Level exec I've talked with over the last decade was surprised by or opposed to statements to that effect. Analysing specific "unhappy paths", discovering what breaks and how to prevent that isn't a new idea - but gaining the "random sampling, mapping of couplings & condensing of residuals" viewpoint is I feel a valuable conceptual addition. As a (relatively minor) point of criticism: I do feel the talk kinda (ab)uses the term "criticality" to refer to a mixture of the related but distinct concepts of self-organization and adaptivity, edge-of-chaos/edge-of-criticality operation, ergodicity, and viability. Criticality itself does not mean resilience - even though for complex adaptive systems within specifically designed constraints on the dimensionality and "topology" of their phase-spaces, edge-of-criticality operation is what guarantees flexibility to changing circumstances. (A final side note: The name is "Norbert Wiener", not "Weiner")
Thanks! The goal of the talk is to shift programmers to this way if thinking, C-levels should have figured this out already! It’s a brief talk so no time to dive into all the details around criticality/resilience/edge of chaos, you’ll find this in the other talks on residuality which leans on the work of Kauffman, as well as in the book.
I feel like I was missing a "what am I supposed to do about it", I think the the conclusion was "Be a lateral thinker" is that it? or is it more complex than that?
I loved this talk live, and I went back to listen to it again here. This should be a cure for an architect's ego trip. One thing still puzzles me. Where is Barry from? What is this accent? It is so interesting and I can't really figure it out :)
I think that architecture walks are evaluation of end-customer experience. You are trying to impersonate as a customer to see if the architecture is right. If it is possible to support the walk by experiments or feedback loops it is even better. The one thing that is missing here is VALUE to the customer. For example, consider this metric, enterprise app is good when you spend as little as possible time within it. Entertainment app is on the contrary, good when you spend a lot of time there. When I am talking to customer about this, it is like revelation for them. I will definitely look into residuality. Nice talk.
Read Juval Lowy's Righting Software and go on some IDesign courses. Barry took a lot of inspiration from that man. At least it's practical, and not just finger waving solutions to problems without any concrete implementation to back it up.
While I appreciate the presenter’s enthusiasm, I found some of the concepts a bit disconnected from the practical challenges faced in industry. It would be interesting to see how these ideas could be applied in real-world scenarios. I think there's a lot of potential, but perhaps more concrete examples would help bridge the gap between theory and practice.
UA-cam recommended me this talk in amongst a cluster of Dylan Beattie and a couple of David Whitney... it's like "erm, Google if you could just tone down your stereotyping a little bit, that would be great!". ;)
We often jump into projects by making key decisions early on, like setting the complete architecture. But the reality is, our understanding of the project's specifics improves as we go. This creates a bit of a catch-22. To balance this, it might be wise to delay some decisions until we have more information. For instance, I like using manual dry runs to ensure the plan will work (validate it manually).
A speech replete with shallow considerations about philosophers and philosophy. It's not a matter of disagreement on my side, but simply, it does not rise to a level of basic philosophical competence.
This talk was not given to philosophy enthusiasts, but to an audience of programmers. And the purpose of the talk was to give some direction, not to impress people with "philosophical competence".
This is one of the best talks I've ever seen in my entire life. It unites complex theory, architecture and computer. I'm amazed.
Fantastic talk, very interesting how you tie concepts of complexity, epistimological approaches and different roles in the software development process together. Thanks!
New personal favorite, I've been digging for the high level approach of Architecture and Software Engineering for a long time, with Kevlin Henney or IT - historical talks. This one just opened me a new window to look through. Incredible!
thank you for sharing the outcomes of your analysis.
I love this talk connecting the fluidity of the real world / business goals / technology stacks and soul searching from the beginning on how to deal with the madness/reality as an software architect. Relating the tangible world into the software (intangible) was insightful that we are still on a journey.
Barry, i`m amazed with this talk, i`ve never see before a unity of all these themes togheter.
Brilliant talk. Thanks Barry!
Thank you for such an interesting talk! As a philosopher (of science) by training and architect by trade - I do see a lot to like here (I had been thinking of solution-patterns in terms of attractors in complex dynamic systems for a while, so it was especially lovely to see this analogy being employed in this talk).
Thankfully, it seems that the fact that architecture is not about correctness but about being "circumspect" in one way or another is not really a paradigm shift - at least no C-Level exec I've talked with over the last decade was surprised by or opposed to statements to that effect.
Analysing specific "unhappy paths", discovering what breaks and how to prevent that isn't a new idea - but gaining the "random sampling, mapping of couplings & condensing of residuals" viewpoint is I feel a valuable conceptual addition.
As a (relatively minor) point of criticism: I do feel the talk kinda (ab)uses the term "criticality" to refer to a mixture of the related but distinct concepts of self-organization and adaptivity, edge-of-chaos/edge-of-criticality operation, ergodicity, and viability. Criticality itself does not mean resilience - even though for complex adaptive systems within specifically designed constraints on the dimensionality and "topology" of their phase-spaces, edge-of-criticality operation is what guarantees flexibility to changing circumstances.
(A final side note: The name is "Norbert Wiener", not "Weiner")
Thanks! The goal of the talk is to shift programmers to this way if thinking, C-levels should have figured this out already!
It’s a brief talk so no time to dive into all the details around criticality/resilience/edge of chaos, you’ll find this in the other talks on residuality which leans on the work of Kauffman, as well as in the book.
@@DrPierredelaMora That's certainly fair. I'll be looking out for the other talks - and I think I'll take a look at the book as well, thank you!
Excellent !
I feel like I was missing a "what am I supposed to do about it", I think the the conclusion was "Be a lateral thinker" is that it? or is it more complex than that?
incorporate this perspective into your thinking, see how it might apply to your context
I recommend skimming through it again to see the points he was making along the way (quite fitting considering the walk/river metaphors).
I feel this talk corresponds well with Casey Muratori’s presentation «the only unbreakable law».
Thank you for sharing 😊
I loved this talk live, and I went back to listen to it again here.
This should be a cure for an architect's ego trip.
One thing still puzzles me. Where is Barry from? What is this accent? It is so interesting and I can't really figure it out :)
Great Talk, really made me think
Love it! Thanks!
I think that architecture walks are evaluation of end-customer experience. You are trying to impersonate as a customer to see if the architecture is right. If it is possible to support the walk by experiments or feedback loops it is even better. The one thing that is missing here is VALUE to the customer. For example, consider this metric, enterprise app is good when you spend as little as possible time within it. Entertainment app is on the contrary, good when you spend a lot of time there. When I am talking to customer about this, it is like revelation for them. I will definitely look into residuality. Nice talk.
Read Juval Lowy's Righting Software and go on some IDesign courses. Barry took a lot of inspiration from that man. At least it's practical, and not just finger waving solutions to problems without any concrete implementation to back it up.
While I appreciate the presenter’s enthusiasm, I found some of the concepts a bit disconnected from the practical challenges faced in industry. It would be interesting to see how these ideas could be applied in real-world scenarios. I think there's a lot of potential, but perhaps more concrete examples would help bridge the gap between theory and practice.
Love ❤️ it and thank you
UA-cam recommended me this talk in amongst a cluster of Dylan Beattie and a couple of David Whitney... it's like "erm, Google if you could just tone down your stereotyping a little bit, that would be great!". ;)
Put the JS developers in there and you can boost the rate of change even 1000x further…
I love how the audience, all looks like they have blue hair... some are have gone into total smurf mode lol
We often jump into projects by making key decisions early on, like setting the complete architecture. But the reality is, our understanding of the project's specifics improves as we go. This creates a bit of a catch-22. To balance this, it might be wise to delay some decisions until we have more information. For instance, I like using manual dry runs to ensure the plan will work (validate it manually).
If programming is different to architecture (correctness vs criticality) then why dunk on OO with the same arguments as architectural modelling?
OO often extends beyond the code to the modelling of social/business systems. As a programming construct its fine, as a modelling tool it’s limited.
Architecture, or its patterns, is almost religion in some places, so architecture and philosophy being related isn't that surprising 😂
A speech replete with shallow considerations about philosophers and philosophy. It's not a matter of disagreement on my side, but simply, it does not rise to a level of basic philosophical competence.
This talk was not given to philosophy enthusiasts, but to an audience of programmers. And the purpose of the talk was to give some direction, not to impress people with "philosophical competence".