我认为架构是关于人类和/或系统的接口。例如，web服务契约(包括协议等)就是体系结构。一个屏幕是如何组成的，不是颜色之类的，而是有什么领域，这就是架构。

设计就是如何建造某样东西。什么框架、语言、技术等等。当然，这必须与考虑平台、安全性等的企业指导方针和限制相一致。

我认为当我们讨论设计与架构时，我们应该使用下面的规则来确定:如果您创建的软件图的元素可以一一映射到编程语言的语法结构，那么就是设计，如果不是架构。

So, for example, if you are seeing a class diagram or a sequence diagram, you are able to map a class and their relationships to an Object Oriented Programming language using the Class syntactical construction. This is clearly Design. In addition, this might bring to the table that this discussion has a relation with the programming language you will use to implement a software system. If you use Java, the previous example applies, as Java is an Object Oriented Programming Language. If you come up with a diagram that shows packages and its dependencies, that is Design too. You can map the element (a package in this case) to a Java syntactical construction.

Now, suppose your Java application is divided in modules, and each module is a set of packages (represented as a jar file deployment unit), and you are presented with a diagram containing modules and its dependencies, then, that is Architecture. There isn’t a way in Java (at least not until Java 7) to map a module (a set of packages) to a syntactical construction. You might also notice that this diagram represents a step higher in the level of abstraction of your software model. Any diagram above (coarse grained than) a package diagram, represents an Architectural view when developing in the Java programming language. On the other hand, if you are developing in Modula-2, then, a module diagram represents a Design.

(摘自http://www.copypasteisforword.com/notes/software-architecture-vs-software-design)

如果有人建造了一艘船，那么发动机、船体、电路等将是他的“建筑元素”。对他来说，发动机制造将是“设计工作”。

如果他将引擎的构建委托给另一个团队，他们将创建一个“引擎架构”……

这取决于抽象和细节的程度。一个人的建筑可能是另一个人的设计!

体系结构更像是集成系统的各种功能，以实现系统的一个整体目标，而设计则解决每个功能需求。

例如，以MVVM为例，这是一种体系结构模式。对于通知功能，MVVM使用观察者模式，这又是一种设计模式，

正如其他人指出的那样，规划软件的架构实际上是做出对软件开发或执行生命周期有整体影响的主要设计决策;所以简单地说，建筑只是高层次的设计。

即使架构决策不影响所有组件(因此是局部的)，它仍然必须是全局相关的，即它以某种方式影响整个系统;否则只是一个本地设计决策。

不过，我想指出的是，与架构相关的一个更相关的问题可能是Hennessy & Patterson在《计算机架构》中定义的架构vs组织。基于此，我们可以将体系结构视为系统的数据模型(输入/输出，状态)抽象，而将组织视为实现(软件开发)过程中所采取的典型设计决策。

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.