架构是“难以改变的设计决策”。

在使用TDD之后，这实际上意味着你的设计一直在变化，我经常发现自己在这个问题上挣扎。上面的定义摘自Martin Fowler的《企业应用程序体系结构模式》

这意味着架构依赖于你的系统的语言、框架和领域。如果你能在5分钟内从Java类中提取出一个接口，这就不再是架构决策了。

我认为当我们讨论设计与架构时，我们应该使用下面的规则来确定:如果您创建的软件图的元素可以一一映射到编程语言的语法结构，那么就是设计，如果不是架构。

So, for example, if you are seeing a class diagram or a sequence diagram, you are able to map a class and their relationships to an Object Oriented Programming language using the Class syntactical construction. This is clearly Design. In addition, this might bring to the table that this discussion has a relation with the programming language you will use to implement a software system. If you use Java, the previous example applies, as Java is an Object Oriented Programming Language. If you come up with a diagram that shows packages and its dependencies, that is Design too. You can map the element (a package in this case) to a Java syntactical construction.

Now, suppose your Java application is divided in modules, and each module is a set of packages (represented as a jar file deployment unit), and you are presented with a diagram containing modules and its dependencies, then, that is Architecture. There isn’t a way in Java (at least not until Java 7) to map a module (a set of packages) to a syntactical construction. You might also notice that this diagram represents a step higher in the level of abstraction of your software model. Any diagram above (coarse grained than) a package diagram, represents an Architectural view when developing in the Java programming language. On the other hand, if you are developing in Modula-2, then, a module diagram represents a Design.

(摘自http://www.copypasteisforword.com/notes/software-architecture-vs-software-design)

你说得对，是的。系统的架构是它的“骨架”。它是系统抽象的最高层次。有什么样的数据存储，模块之间如何交互，有什么样的恢复系统。就像设计模式一样，也有架构模式:MVC、3层分层设计等。

软件设计就是设计各个模块/组件。模块x的职责和功能是什么?Y类?它能做什么，不能做什么?可以使用哪些设计模式?

所以简而言之，软件架构更多的是整个系统的设计，而软件设计则强调模块/组件/类的层面。

我同意其中的许多解释;本质上，我们认识到软件系统的架构设计和详细设计之间的区别。

虽然设计师的目标是在开发所需的规格中尽可能精确和具体;架构师本质上的目标是指定系统的结构和全局行为，就像详细设计开始时所要求的那样。

优秀的架构师会避免过度规范——架构不能过分指定，但要足够，(架构)决策只针对那些风险处理成本最高的方面建立，并有效地提供一个框架(“通用性”)，在这个框架内可以进行详细设计，即局部功能的可变性。

实际上，体系结构过程或生命周期只是遵循这个主题——足够的抽象级别来概述(体系结构上的)重要业务需求的结构，并将更多细节留给设计阶段以实现更具体的可交付成果。

在SDLC(软件开发生命周期)的一些描述中，它们是可互换的，但共识是它们是不同的。它们同时是:不同的(1)阶段，(2)责任领域，(3)决策层次。

架构是更大的图景:框架、语言、范围、目标和高级方法(Rational、瀑布式、敏捷等)的选择。 设计是更小的画面:如何组织代码的计划;系统不同部分之间的契约将会是怎样的;项目方法和目标的持续实施。规范是在这个阶段编写的。

由于不同的原因，这两个阶段似乎融合在一起。

Smaller projects often don't have enough scope to separate out planning into these to stages. A project might be a part of a larger project, and hence parts of both stages are already decided. (There are already existing databases, conventions, standards, protocols, frameworks, reusable code, etc.) Newer ways of thinking about the SDLC (see Agile methodologies) somewhat rearrange this traditional approach. Design (architecture to a lesser extent) takes place throughout the SDLC on purpose. There are often more iterations where the whole process happens over and over. Software development is complicated and difficult to plan anyway, but clients/managers/salespeople usually make it harder by changing goals and requirements mid-stream. Design and even architectural decisions must bemade later in the project whether that is the plan or not.

Even if the stages or areas of responsibility blend together and happen all over the place, it is always good to know what level of decision-making is happening. (We could go on forever with this. I'm trying to keep it a summary.) I'll end with: Even if it seems your project has no formal architectural or design stage/AOR/documentaiton, it IS happening whether anyone is consciously doing it or not. If no one decides to do architecture, then a default one happens that is probably poor. Ditto for design. These concepts are almost more important if there are no formal stages representing them.

是的，对我来说听起来不错。设计是你要做的事情，而架构是将设计的各个部分连接在一起的方式。它可以是语言不可知的，但通常会指定要使用的技术，例如LAMP vs Windows, Web服务vs RPC。