What’s the relationship between software architecture and software design?

Software architecture exposes the structure of a system while hiding the implementation details. Architecture also focuses on how the elements and components within a system interact with one other. Software design delves deeper into the implementation details of the system. Design concerns include the selection of data structures and algorithms, or the implementation details of individual components.To get more news about cad architecture, you can visit shine news official website.

Architecture and design concerns often overlap. Rather than use hard and fast rules to distinguish between architecture and design, it makes sense to combine them. In some cases, decisions are clearly more architectural in nature. In other cases, decisions focus heavily on design and how it helps to realize that architecture.

An important detail to note is that architecture is design, but not all design is architectural. In practice, the architect is the one who draws the line between software architecture (architectural design) and detailed design (non-architectural design). There are no rules or guidelines that fit all cases—although, there have been attempts to formalize the distinction.

Current trends in software architecture assume that the design evolves over time and that a software architect cannot know everything up front to fully architect a system. The design generally evolves during the implementation stages of the system. The software architect continuously learns and tests the design against real world requirements.
Implementation bugs in code account for at least half of the overall software security problem. The other half involves a different kind of software defect occurring at the design level. The division of design flaws and bugs is about 50/50. Both need to be secured to ensure your software’s well-being. You can institute the best code review program on the planet, with the strongest tools known to humanity, but it’s unlikely that you will be able to find and fix flaws this way.

It is far more cost-effective to identify and remediate design flaws early in the design process than to patch flawed design implementations after deployment. Architecture risk analysis (ARA) and Threat Modeling are useful in finding and fixing design flaws.

Organizations failing to integrate architecture and design reviews in the development process are often surprised to find that their software suffers from systemic faults both at the design level and in the implementation. In many cases, the defects uncovered in penetration testing could have been identified more easily through other techniques—earlier in the life cycle. Testers who use architecture analysis results to direct their work often reap greater benefit.