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 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 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.

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.