A common question I get asked is “How do I make architectural decisions?” and my standard answer is “it depends”. While it’s a tongue in cheek answer, there is a bit of truth to it. While there are frameworks and methodologies to try and reign this problem in, the reality is that the practice of “software architecture” is inherently a mess and certainly a wicked problem. That having been said, I’ll give some insight into “how I do it”.
However, in the latter case, some questions are: “do I want to highlight using ruby’s dynamic nature?” or “illustrate how Ruby can lead to higher quality code?” or something else like “do I want to illustrate how rapidly Ruby applications on android can be developer relative to java?”. This also opens up another can of worms you need to consider, such are “is the pool of developers for Ruby such that developing in that language is even VIABLE?”.
My best advice is this: Architecture is like software meteorology, you can’t predict the future, but you CAN some up with general models that work for defined scopes. What does this mean? Simply that trying to define software architecture is like trying to define what the weather is for the entire globe. The fact is, “it doesn’t matter” if your primary objective is to determine if you want to go to the pool or not. All that really matters is the local weather and your preference for the kind of weather you like to go to the pool in. Moreover, you don’t need to necessarily explain “why you chose to go to beach instead of a pool” because you realized your original desire was “to go swimming” and limiting your option to a pool might have been a mistake (for other reasons). Put another way, “software architecture is understanding what’s important” and “making important decisions”, that art is learning how to figure out what is important, the science is too complicated to think about.