建筑就是设计，但并非所有的设计都是建筑。因此，严格地说，尝试区分架构设计和非架构设计会更有意义。有什么区别呢?视情况而定!每个软件架构师可能有不同的答案(ymmv!)我们开发我们的启发式来提出一个答案，例如“类图是架构，序列图是设计”。有关更多信息，请参阅DSA书籍。

人们常说，架构比设计处于更高的抽象级别，或者架构是逻辑的，而设计是物理的。但这种观念虽然被普遍接受，但在实践中却毫无用处。在高抽象和低抽象之间，逻辑和物理之间，你的界线在哪里?视情况而定!

所以，我的建议是:

create a single design document. name this design document the way you want or, better, the way the readers are more accustomed to. Examples: "Software Architecture", "Software Design Specification". break this document into views and keep in mind you can create a view as a refinement of another view. make the views in the document navigable by adding cross-references or hyperlinks then you'll have higher level views showing broad but shallow overview of the design, and closer-to-implementation views showing narrow but deeper design details. you may want to take a look at an example of multi-view architecture document (here).

说了这么多……我们需要问的一个更相关的问题是:多少设计才足够?也就是说，我什么时候应该停止描述设计(用图表或散文)，而应该转向编码?

软件架构“关注的问题是……超出了计算的算法和数据结构。

架构特别不是关于实现的细节(例如，算法和数据结构)。体系结构设计包含了比OOD(面向对象设计)通常提供的更丰富的抽象集合。

设计涉及到设计元素的模块化和详细接口，它们的算法和过程，以及支持体系结构和满足需求所需的数据类型。

“建筑”经常被用作“设计”的同义词(有时前面带有形容词“高级”)。许多人使用术语“架构模式”作为“设计模式”的同义词。

查看这个链接。

定义术语体系结构、设计和实现

Good question... Although the line between them is hardly a bright sharp line, imho, if you are using both terms, then Architecture encompasses more technical or structural decisions about how to build or construct something, especially those decisions that will be hard (or harder) to change once implemeneted, whereas Design encompasses those decisions that either are easy to change later (like method names, class <-> file organizational structure, design patterns, whether to use a singleton or a static class to solve some specific problem, etc. ) and/or those that effect the appearance or esthetic aspects of a system or application (Human Interface, ease of use, look and feel, etc.)

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。

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.

体系结构确定了系统的基本组件，描述了它们的组织，以及它们与创建系统框架的关系。

设计描述了各种组件，以及应该如何在系统架构提供的框架中开发它们以提供所需的功能。