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

当您需要将较高体系结构级别识别的业务和功能投射到应用程序中时，软件体系结构最好用于系统级。

例如，你的业务是关于交易员的“盈亏”，你的主要功能涉及“投资组合评估”和“风险计算”。

但是当软件架构师详细描述他的解决方案时，他会意识到:

“投资组合评估”不能只是一个应用程序。它需要在可管理的项目中进行细化，例如:

GUI 发射器 调度程序 .．.

(因为涉及的操作太大了，需要在几台计算机之间进行拆分，同时仍然可以通过一个通用的GUI随时监控)

软件设计将检查不同的应用程序，它们的技术关系和内部子组件。 它将产生最后一个体系结构层(“技术体系结构”)工作所需的规范(根据技术框架或横向组件)，以及项目团队(更面向业务功能的实现)开始各自的项目所需的规范。

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.

当我寻找建筑和设计之间的简单区别时，我发现了这一点; 你对这种看待他们的方式有什么看法?

架构是我们正在建造的“什么”; 设计是我们“如何”建造;

以下是可能更详细地解释体系结构的参考资料和软件体系结构的UML图列表。(我找不到用于软件设计的UML图列表)

Grady Booch

在架构模型中使用UML 2图

UML图的分类

UML图的分类

即使在发布了这个答案之后，我自己也不清楚哪个图是用于架构的，哪个图是用于设计的:)。Grady Booch在他的第58张幻灯片中指出，类、接口和协作是设计视图的一部分，而这个设计视图是架构视图的一部分!!

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)