Opinion: Architect VS Engineer VS Developer

I'll bite :)

I have had all those titles, and it makes little to no difference to what I do, and quite a lot of different to how I'm perceived.

First contact with suppliers or customers: it's useful to set an expectation of authority so I'm an Architect - they feel valued and we can get going quicker on working together (or coming to agreed separation).

With team members I will be working with: I introduce myself as the fool responsible for the poor decisions, taking some pressure off them, suggesting that good decisions are made by others and demonstrating the humour necessary for survival in a work environment :) Over time they can decide for themselves on my actual skills!

Would I be offended by being a known as a 'coder'? Nope, quite the opposite: that means someone thinks I can in fact write code, and will understand what I'm looking at (possibly their efforts, possibly my latest PoC mess), a fellow geek, not a weird out-of-touch golf-course decision making 'Architect' in an ivory tower somewhere.

In terms of what I do: architecture is a role on a team, equal valued to other roles, with different focus and outcomes (big picture goals, communication with stakeholders, etc.) it's my T-shaped specialism, other folks enjoy theirs and together we get stuff done. If we're doing it right then mentoring takes place and others get to learn some system and business scale patterns from me while I learn something from them.

Architect selects tools, frameworks, paradigms best suited for the job. Example: the person that draws a blueprint has selected the shape and materials for a house.

Engineer solves a real-world problem using software/algorithmic principles and coordinates with stakeholders. Example: a foreman consumes a blueprint but decides in which order things will be done, best practices for assembling components of the house, guides implementation etc.

Developer implements the solution; they are developing the software by bugfixing, refactoring, etc. Example: general laborers hammer in the nails when it is time to frame a house and tear down walls when it is time to remodel.

All of these are not titles but modes of operation that a single person can be working in at any given time. Each person will have varying degrees of proficiency at each important task and so when it comes time to titleize, may prefer a specific title.

IMO.

I'm proud to be "just" a developer.
I design my software, I do technical choices, I assume it and I can argue them, but I'm still a developer.
The rest is bullshit.

Thanks for putting this in the debate 😉

In Canada you can't call yourself an engineer without an engineering education and passing a union exam. So software engineering in Canada is rare it's architect or developer. An engineer is incharge of making systems that could affect someone's life and require ethics in Desicion making a software engineer would work on the site on hardware that keeps you alive like a heart rate monitor. A developer makes stuff that runs on computers or the internet

I've found that there are nuances between how one organization interprets these titles versus another. But where it really matters is when it comes to deciding pay and fair market value. I'm more likely to stick with "Software Engineer" as a title than "Software Developer" because I can negotiate better compensation with the former. When it comes to dollars and cents, you have to ensure that the job responsibilities are commensurate with the pay you're looking to get at a company. Know your worth.

Interesting! It would be a bigger deal if the field were as regulated as architecture of physical structures for example. Without that, the words may have as many meanings as there are companies with job-boards 😬

I also think that, to be good in any of the three, you need to be good in all of the three.

I guess it also depends on the language. The German translation "Ingenieur" isn't common in the dev-context. Maybe it has to do with the "German Engineering" trope, that already owns the term.
"Architekt" and "Entwickler" (Developer) are used more commonly, though. In conversation with non-tech-people, the term "Programmierer" is usually sufficient.

module InMyOrganization

let architect = ...
let engineer = ...
let developer = ...

I believe these titles are just an attempt to categorize jobs for management purposes. The actual duties performed will vary based on the needs of the organization and team.

An architect is considered a senior position. You don't typically see companies looking for a Junior Architect. Depending on the organization, an "architect" may be just the most senior engineer/developer.

I agree with these definitions, having taken positions where I could be considered a developer, engineer, or architect. I always considered myself more of an engineer even when recruiters wouldn't touch the title Web Engineer with a cattle prod.

I do see a difference between an Architect, Engineer and Developer in my organization. It is certainly not a label to describe knowledge level of the people. I do see it as the point of view they have on the software they are building or helping to build.

Our architects are flying over the whole technical landscape, they monitor the things we do and build. We discuss all our decisions with them. They are the one with the 'biggest' picture.

Our engineers are designing, thinking on how a problem can be solved. They focus on their domain but take a look around them to see how other teams are doing things. How can fit a solution the best way in our infrastructure?

Our developers are focused on the thing they are programming. They do not have that much interest of the bigger picture but do have interest in building the software they must build in the most effective way possible.

Yes, the labels are just bullsh*t. Why? Because they make you feel less than someone else. But we need all of them, we need every person in the organization. Together, we build great things for our customers. Sometimes I am feeling like an engineer. Sometimes I feel like an architect. And sometimes I feel like a developer.

At the end we all want to make good software, and it depends on our perspective on what we do. We can do our things on all level. But it depends on the interests of the person themself.

I think i am software developer in some projects and software engineer in others, because sometimes you are required to analyze, design and code. But there are cases in which there is nothing to analyze and you just code

I am a software engineering manager (another world of titles with similar debate as I am observing on this post), will put in my two cents here. I generally hire SW engineers, SW developers, SW architects, etc for roles in my team and project and it hardly matters what titles they hold in their current job. If they can fit the job requirement and have good design and coding skills they are hired. Titles are generally driven by organization business needs and have a lot to do with what kind of product you are going to develop. So we should not get too much carried away by titles. All of them are good. Disclaimer: I started as a 'software engineer' and after coding for 7-8 years moved to management. If I ever go back to coding I will accept any title that you give me which is related to software development.

You don't typically see architects in smaller companies or at least, if you do, their role is not the same as it would be at a larger company. In larger companies, architects tend to work more horizontally across some or all of the teams within the broader engineering organization, not going too deep with any individual team. They work with the developers, managers, and product teams for some subset of services in their wider system to guide development of the system as a whole, helping negotiate tradeoffs between vertically focused teams when necessary.

In these larger engineering orgs, they might not even do any programming, or if they do they'll generally stick with prototypes to understand implications of different patterns, but they aren't usually down in the weeds on product development.

Regarding "engineer", I see all of what we do as engineering, so developers and architects are both engineers. Making a distinction between "engineer" and "developer" seems to be headcanon at best. "Engineer" sounds classier than "developer" but no developer I've worked with that cared about "engineer" vs "developer" in my 15 years in this industry has produced anything better than anyone else from either a short-term or long-term perspective. Seems more ego-driven than anything.

The biggest enemy, in my opinion, is the ego, when a developer becomes an architect, it seems as if the desire of coding is removed, when the architect is the first who has to code, since after all, what is sought is that the system be manufactured in less time, easier to debug and higher quality.

Software / Architect

They focus on the whole business (instead of individual systems, applications and programs) to determine or give advices about what softwares are to be bought (with or without customizations) and what softwares are to be developed (custom). They also set general guidelines and constraints to be observed when softwares are developed or bought. They choose standards, technologies, frameworks, langages, paradigms, and the tools that has to be followed. Software architects is a role assumed by developers or former experienced developers.

Software / Business Analyst

They help guide businesses in improving processes, products, services and software through data analysis. These agile workers straddle the line between IT and the business to help bridge the gap and improve efficiency. They gather requirements (in a document). Business analyst is a role that could be assumed by developers or former experienced developers.

Software / Developers

They modelize (design that include implementation-specific and technology-specific details) the systems (databases, applications, services, message brokers, etc.) using the information (if any) provided by the architects (if any), the engineers (if any) and the business analysts (if any). Those detailed specifications are intended to programmers.

They are capable of doing all of what is accomplished by the architects, the engineers, the business analysts and the programmers. When they do, By reducing the "assembly line" and since the developers have more awareness on what they already have in their back store (what they already did and can be re-used) and elsewhere, they can deliver quick/cheap interesting solutions.

They gather and set requirements, propose solutions, design and develop softwares for the chosen solution.

Software / Engineer

They solve real-world problems using software principles. They write the design documents for the developers. A design is a model (with algorithms) without any implementation-specific or technology-specific details. A model is a design with those details. Engineers also coordinate with stakeholders. Software engineer is a role that could be assumed by developers or former experienced developers.

Software / Programmer

They create/modify databases and programs, based on detailed specifications provided by the developers.

My question is, what is the term for someone who fits all three roles? Most of my developer roles have involved just being told the requirements and coding features, then passing them to QA. My current job, though, is with a much more agile team, and every "developer" has a hand in every part of the process. We meet and talk with the customers and end users often for feedback and to discuss new features and requirements, like engineers. We do all of the coding, like the developers. We also make all architecture decisions -- our server configurations, our technologies, our libraries, our infrastructure, etc.

We all fill all three of these roles, which one we are filling just depends on the day. Is there are word for this kind of position?