For decades, IT architecture has been narrowly defined by evolving software programming patterns—object-oriented design, client-server, 2-tier to 3-tier, service-oriented, and microservices. While these patterns serve a purpose, they are not architecture—they are the materials of implementation. Yet, these patterns have been misleadingly served in the name of architecture.
Let’s draw an analogy: In construction, the evolution of materials—ranging from traditional clay bricks to eco-friendly bricks and from ordinary Portland cement to innovative geopolymer cement—plays a critical role in building projects. Similarly, steel brands like ArcelorMittal, Tata Steel, or LafargeHolcim have revolutionized construction materials.
But the architecture of a building is defined by its blueprint, not the specific materials or brands used. Imagine if we referred to civil architects as "Lafarge Cement Architects" or "ArcelorMittal Steel Architects." Such brand-specific labels make no sense, as the architect’s role is to focus on structure, vision, and design—not the materials they use.