Software Design Introduction 

Thank you !!! 😊

100% true

Yes, I will make a video about SOLID later in this series 😊

@@JakobJenkov Thanks, I appreciate it

Thank you ! ... and you are welcome !! 😊

Thank you !!

Great ! Hope you liked it ! :-)

According to my definition, yes. But other people might disagree.

@@JakobJenkov Ok. Very different take, I would say

I don’t think you need to have a distributed system to have a software architecture. If your text editor consists of more than one module and these modules have interfaces, you can very well have a software architecture to define the relationships between these modules. I should note that if you are working on a small project all by yourself, 99% of the time any software engineering effort is a wasted effort. Software engineering is like an investment and you can only benefit from it if you have a multi-person and multi-version project.

@@rifatsl you meant to say something like indie games are waste of efforts?

No, I said software engineering effort would be useless in that scenario, I didn’t say software implementation effort would be useless. The difference between them is the “Engineering” part. Software Engineering != Programming Simply implementing a software project without doing proper software engineering can be more resource efficient if that project is a single-person and single-version project. Single-version means no maintenance is required. Therefore, code quality doesn’t matter anymore. Single-person means no communication required. Therefore, code readability doesn’t matter anymore.

Hi, thank you for your feedback! I would appreciate if you could list some of the books you feel that have already formalized this. I will be reading a bood bunch of software design books during the making of this series. I have already read some - but I can always scan a few more :-) Yes, you are right that I am trying to formalize the concept of "software design" based on how I have experienced it being done in practice today, rather than what some theoretical book / philosophy has to say about the topic 20 years ago. But - my formalization is not just based on my own perception. I have heard several developers with 20+ years of experience talk about "software design" and refer to the design of the functionality - the part which you call the "software requirement analysis". That is what we used to call it - but people that work with that will often refer to it as "design". They feel they are "designing" a solution to a business problem. And the developers that take over that solution specification feel they "design" an implementation of that solution specification. Who of them are right? Who has the right to claim they do "design" ? That is why I believe it is better to talk about "functional design" and "structural design" - rather than "requirement gathering and analysis" and "software design". After all - "solution architects" does "architect" (design) a solution - even if in the abstract - don't they? The purpose of this video - and future videos about this topic, is _not_ to simply repeat what others have already said about the topic, but to come up with a conceptual frame which I find to be more useful than the old conceptual frames. Some of what I don't like about earlier books I have read on this topic is that the books tend to describe the functional design phase as a separate, early phase of the development. In iterative development though, functional requirements are gathered iteratively - which also means that software design has to be done iteratively - which is something books about agile software development often mention is necessary, but do not really formalize how to do. How do we continously work with software design - and thus redesign also? I will be exploring that that in later videos. Both "software design" and "software architecture" could be said to have a "high level" and a "low level" (and a "mid level") aspect to them. I have heard (and read) developers refer to "software architecture" as both a high level and low level actvity too. Some developers use the term "software architecture" when discussing the internal patterns or design archetypes the software uses. So - which is which? The terms are not clearly defined - and some use them differently than what you claim they mean. That is why I clarify what _I_ mean when I refer to software design and archtitecture. But as I also mention in the video, there are no formal, clear distinctions between the two. Design could contain architecture - and architecture could contain design. By the way, Object Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) was also already "formalized in the past" - but it is unfortunately not very useful in practice - exactly because those ideas make the mistake of believing that structural design is derived from functional specification. In practice, however, most structural design is not derived from the functional specification. I make a habit of challenging all older ideas that I do not really feel are representative of reality today. If a concept is not clearly defined - I will put my own definition to it - while using it - or my information would become fluffy - unclear. There is a lot more I could say - but I will be saying it in future videos about software design. I am not done yet :-) But you are right - I _am_ breaking up the old definitions and attempt to come up with a new set of definitions I feel are more representative of what I personally see going on out there - than the definitions in the old books.

@@JakobJenkov I would recommend reading SWEBOK and Software Engineering by Ian Sommerville if you haven’t already.