Good article presenting a fairly compelling case for the establishment of accepted standards (as is pointed out, exist in other areas) in the writing of software.

It's hard to comment on something about which one knows nothing. But I wonder if this explains what appears to be the unnecessary complexity of some technological devices, the inability of many of these devices to communicate with each other even though they are of the same genre, the problems that arise when major conversions are undertaken, and the inability of simple humans to keep up. If it doesn't explain stuff like that, what does?

Grady Booch is one of the more respected names in computer science, as such I was dissapointed that he didn't have a deeper insight and a more complete discussion of the topic.

This is an interesting piece for even those readers who know very little about how the instruments we use, our computers, cellphones, ATM's, actually work. Based on an interview with expert "software archaeologist" Grady Brooch, Greenemeier explains the evolution of software and why there is not a codified method for developing it. He also explains why it is so important, in economic terms, to have a systematic approach. Finally, he describes how we can provide more uniform ... More »

This is an important topic that received disappointingly shallow coverage, even for a "Q & A" presentation. Obviously, the interview format doesn't lend itself to multiple sources, but maybe a "round-table" style article would have allowed more perspectives in. There are plenty of strongly-opinioned people in this field, after all.

Grady Booch is a very well known guy in the world of commercial application development. He sort of gets it right. He states that there is no real architectural vision for most software projects. But what does he mean by architecture, anyway? I always thought architecture was a set of mental models for understanding the structure of something - a building, or a computer program, or a government project, or anything. The problem with this is that there is (1) no real continuity ... More »