Has Anyone Seen My Architecture?
There are countless definitions of software architecture.
Some emphasize decisions, others structures, others “the important stuff,” or whatever is hardest to change. Read enough of them and architecture begins to feel like something that slips through every classification—a creature everyone describes differently, yet no one seems to have seen.
And yet, this creature clearly exists. No one doubts that.
We recognize it by its effects: slow delivery, bugs that refuse to die, changes that feel far riskier than they should, systems that push back against even the smallest improvement.
The Mysterious Creature
One might try to exercise the imagination—to picture something that lives partly in code and partly in our heads. A multidimensional entity, not bound to a single moment in time, but stretched across the full span of its existence. Shaped by past decisions and external forces, while simultaneously guiding—and constraining—what changes are possible next. With enough effort, one might even convince oneself of having seen it.
But that is not the point.
We are software developers. Our job is not to chase mystical creatures, but to solve problems. We have deadlines. Features. Things that must work. We have bugs that reliably appear at 3 a.m.
What actually matters are the long-term consequences of change:
- Whether, given what we have today, we can meet business requirements tomorrow.
- Where to look when things begin to break apart.
- Whether deleting a piece of code is safe—or the first step toward disaster.
Chop It!
To reason about architecture, we do what physicists do with spacetime—a similarly ungraspable monstrosity. If you are still holding on to some animal-like mental picture of architecture, now is the time to let it go. Things are about to get drastic.
We are going to slice it.
The axis we choose depends on what we want to understand, and which trade-offs we want to bring into the light.
Boundary axis (Context diagram)
What is inside the system, what is outside, and who depends on whom.
Time axis (Architecture Decision Records)
How the system arrived at its current shape.
Which decisions were made under which constraints—and which alternatives were rejected.
Runtime behavior axis (Sequence diagram)
How work flows through the system while it is running.
Who calls whom, in what order, and where latency or failure can occur.
Infrastructure axis (Deployment diagram)
How the system maps onto physical or virtual resources.
What runs where, what can be deployed independently—and what cannot.
Change axis (Module or service diagram)
How the system tends to evolve over time.
What changes together, what should not, and where change is expensive.
There are many more possible slices.
But the important thing is this: none of these projections is the architecture.
They are views—showing relationships, revealing trade-offs, and giving your brain something it can actually navigate.
The End Game
The goal of the architecture game is not to catch the mysterious whale.
Those who try usually end up with piles of documents that age faster than the code—and quickly become useless.
The goal is to deliver. To know which axes to use at any given moment.
To move comfortably across different projections, and to predict the consequences of change—whether we introduce it deliberately or it is forced upon us. To prepare for disasters and to minimize the impact radius when they arrive.
One who knows how to play the game can deliberately evolve the system.
One who does not will eventually be eaten by code-degradation crabs.

You must be logged in to post a comment.