<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
  <title>Coding the Architecture - csharp tag</title>
  <link>http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/tags/csharp/</link>
  <description>Software architecture for developers</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <copyright>Coding the Architecture</copyright>
  <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 08:01:04 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  <generator>Pebble (http://pebble.sourceforge.net)</generator>
  <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
  
  
  <item>
    <title>.NET systems need software architecture too</title>
    <link>http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2008/11/24/net_systems_need_software_architecture_too.html</link>
    
      
        <description>
          &lt;p&gt;
Although most of my experience has been building Java systems, I have worked alongside a few .NET development teams over the past few years, particularly in the banks where many of the new systems being built make use of a range of technologies. One thing that I&#039;ve always found odd is that, if pushed, many Java developers will claim that they&#039;ve undertaken some software architecture whereas most .NET developers won&#039;t. And these aren&#039;t junior developers either. I&#039;ve met some people who really know their .NET but seem reluctant to use the &#034;architecture&#034; word.
&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
I&#039;d be really interested to hear other people&#039;s views on this because I&#039;m not exactly sure why this is. Perhaps some of it can be put down to the Microsoft stack being integrated in a way in which it&#039;s clear how certain types of applications should be built; whether it&#039;s a database-driven website or a desktop application accessing data from a collection of web services. Perhaps it&#039;s just that the people I spoke to were only building small applications that didn&#039;t need a rigourous architecture. Maybe the &#034;Microsoft way&#034; (as promoted on MSDN, etc) is just the de-facto approach. Who knows.
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
Now that I&#039;ve been working in-depth on a complete .NET system (ASP.NET website, WCF services, SQL Server, etc), I don&#039;t really perceive any difference between this and the sort of Java systems that I&#039;ve built in the past. There are multiple distributed tiers, the business logic is being written in a rich OO programming language, there&#039;s XML, there are databases, there are external systems and so on. Throw into the mix some complex non-functional requirements around security and no longer is this a simple &#034;My first ASP.NET application&#034;. To further complicate matters, like Java EE, there are now a number of different technologies that can be used to achieve the same end-goal. ASP.NET or ASP.NET MVC? WCF, WSE or .NET remoting? Is this all running on a single IIS instance or are we splitting it across multiple boxes?
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
For a .NET project like the one that I&#039;m working on, software architecture is just as essential as any other Java system that I&#039;ve worked on in the past. &lt;a href=&#034;http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2008/10/28/becoming_more_architecturally_aware_part_2.html&#034;&gt;Everybody needs to be more architecturally aware&lt;/a&gt;, but my experience suggests that .NET development teams seem reluctant to use the &#034;architecture&#034; word. Why is this?
&lt;/p&gt;
        </description>
      
      
    
    
    
    <category>What is software architecture?</category>
    
    <comments>http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2008/11/24/net_systems_need_software_architecture_too.html#comments</comments>
    <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.codingthearchitecture.com/2008/11/24/net_systems_need_software_architecture_too.html</guid>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:20:43 GMT</pubDate>
  </item>
  
  </channel>
</rss>

