About Me

How I think about architecture, the principles I follow, and the problems I find most interesting.

My Approach to Architecture

I've spent over fourteen years building software systems, and the most important lesson I've learned is that architecture isn't about choosing the right framework or following the latest patterns. It's about understanding the problem space deeply enough that the right structure emerges from the constraints.

Every architectural decision is a bet on the future. Some bets are cheap to reverse—you can switch a library, refactor a module, or rewrite a microservice. Other bets are expensive: database schemas, API contracts, fundamental data models. The art of architecture is knowing which decisions fall into which category and investing your thinking time accordingly.

I've seen too many systems fail not because of technical mistakes, but because of organizational ones. The best architecture in the world doesn't matter if the teams building it can't coordinate effectively, or if the incentive structures push people toward local optimizations that harm the whole. Good architecture is as much about people and communication as it is about code.

Core Principles

  • Understand Before You Solve

    The most common architectural mistake is solving the wrong problem. I spend more time than most people expect asking questions, mapping constraints, and understanding the actual goals before proposing solutions. The right architecture often becomes obvious once the problem is properly understood.

    Trade-off: This approach requires patience from stakeholders who want to see progress quickly. I've learned to balance thorough understanding with delivering early, incremental value.

  • Design for Evolution, Not Perfection

    Systems change. Requirements change. Understanding changes. The goal isn't to design the perfect system today—it's to design a system that can evolve as you learn more. This means favoring loose coupling, clear boundaries, and reversible decisions wherever possible.

    Trade-off: Designing for change can add apparent complexity upfront. I'm careful to distinguish between accidental complexity (waste) and essential complexity (investment in future flexibility).

  • Make the Right Thing the Easy Thing

    Good architecture shapes behavior. When the easiest path through a system also happens to be the correct path, you don't need to rely on discipline or documentation—the structure itself guides people toward good outcomes.

    Trade-off: Building paved roads takes time. Sometimes you need to ship now and build the roads later. The key is knowing when you're accumulating technical debt and having a plan to address it.

  • Optimize for Understanding

    Code is read far more often than it's written. Systems are debugged far more often than they're designed. I prioritize clarity over cleverness, explicit over implicit, and boring technology over exciting technology when the problem doesn't demand otherwise.

    Trade-off: Sometimes the most understandable approach isn't the most performant or the most elegant. I make conscious trade-offs between clarity and other qualities, documenting why when the choice isn't obvious.

Problems I Enjoy Solving

Not all problems are equally interesting to me. I'm drawn to challenges that require balancing multiple competing concerns, understanding complex systems, and finding solutions that are both technically sound and organizationally viable.

I find particular satisfaction in legacy modernization—taking systems that have grown organically over years and finding paths to improve them without stopping the business. These problems require deep technical knowledge, political navigation, and the patience to execute multi-year transformations.

I'm also energized by platform challenges: building internal systems that other teams use as foundations. The puzzle of making something that's powerful enough for experts but accessible enough for newcomers, flexible enough to handle edge cases but opinionated enough to guide toward good defaults—that's the kind of design challenge I find genuinely engaging.

Finally, I enjoy problems at the intersection of technology and organization. How do you structure a system so that teams can work independently? How do you design APIs that create good incentives? How do you build consensus around architectural direction without slowing everything down? These sociotechnical problems are often harder—and more impactful—than purely technical ones.