Talking About Software Architecture is a Lot Like Talking About Sex

I made the mistake of putting my real age on Facebook.

Now that I’m approaching 40, my feed is full of “relationship wellness” apps and “reignite your connection” courses. Meanwhile, on LinkedIn - same person, same profile - I get ads for architecture certifications and “evolve from engineer to architect” bootcamps.

But somewhere between these two algorithmic realities, a thought emerged: the way we talk about these two topics has a lot in common.

The Parallels

Some people never talk about it, while others won’t shut up about their preferences. You know both types in your organization. One ships code in silence, the other has particular opinions about geometric shapes and vegetables (hexagonal, onion architecture) at every standup.

Reading about it is wildly different from doing it. All the books and conference talks in the world won’t prepare you for the messy, awkward, “this isn’t working like advertised” reality.

What works for others might be completely wrong for you. That pattern Netflix uses? Context matters. A lot.

There’s a massive gap between what people say publicly and what’s actually happening behind closed doors. In the meeting: “We follow clean architecture principles.” In the hallway: “That service has been held together with duct tape and prayers since 2019.”

The Real Point

I get it, talking about your preferences, it is hard. It is a deeply personal thing, sometimes you can’t even explain your hunch, that gut feeling on why the new pub-sub is wrong, and sometimes saying something feels like you are exposing yourself, laid bare, like your pants fell off.

You can have meaningful, honest, genuinely productive architecture discussions in private. One-on-one with a trusted colleague. Small groups where everyone feels safe to say “I actually don’t understand why we’re doing it this way.” Or “I tried event sourcing on a hobby project recently, and I liked it more than I expected.”

But put those same people in an Architecture Review Board, a Design Committee, a Technical Steering meeting… and something shifts.

People start performing instead of discussing. They defend instead of explore. They cite industry standards instead of admitting uncertainty. The bigger the audience and the higher the stakes, the less honest the conversation becomes.

The “safe choice” phenomenon kicks in. Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM or Kubernetes. In public forums, people gravitate toward defensible choices over “right*” choices.

*group agreed, or most of the time by persons no longer part of the group

And then there’s the post-meeting hallway. Where the real opinions finally come out. “Between us, I think this is overengineered, but…”

Breaking the Taboo

The best engineering cultures find ways to bring that “private conversation” energy into group settings.

Keep circles small when decisions matter. Give explicit permission to be wrong. Leaders model uncertainty by saying “I’m not sure about this part” out loud. Separate the “explore options” meeting from the “make decisions” meeting.

Your Turn

So maybe the next time you’re in a big architecture review and something feels off… say it anyway. You might be surprised how many people were thinking the same thing.