这个问题没有明确的答案，因为“软件架构”和“软件设计”有相当多的定义，而且都没有一个规范的定义。

一个很好的思考方法是Len Bass, Paul Clements和Rick Kazman的声明，“所有的架构都是设计，但并不是所有的设计都是架构”[软件架构实践]。我不确定我是否完全同意这一点(因为架构可以包括其他活动)，但它抓住了架构是处理设计的关键子集的设计活动的本质。

我的稍微轻率的定义(在SEI定义页面上找到)是，它是一组决策，如果做出错误的决定，将导致项目被取消。

A useful attempt at separating architecture, design and implementation as concepts was done by Amnon Eden and Rick Kazman some years ago in a research paper entitled "Architecture, Design, Implementation" which can be found here: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/ICSE03-1.pdf. Their language is quite abstract but simplistically they say that architecture is design that can be used in many contexts and is meant to be applied across the system, design is (err) design that can be used in many contexts but is applied in a specific part of the system, and implementation is design specific to a context and applied in that context.

So an architectural decision could be a decision to integrate the system via messaging rather than RPC (so it's a general principle that could be applied in many places and is intended to apply to the whole system), a design decision might be to use a master/slave thread structure in the input request handling module of the system (a general principle that could be used anywhere but in this case is just used in one module) and finally, an implementation decision might be to move responsibilities for security from the Request Router to the Request Handler in the Request Manager module (a decision relevant only to that context, used in that context).

我希望这能有所帮助!

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.

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。

在我看来，架构只不过是一个愿景，以正确的方式收集需求并构建构建块

在设计中，构建特定的块可能有100种解决方案，但为了满足具体的要求，我们需要选择正确的方法，所以选择正确的方法或算法不是设计吗

架构: 结构设计是在更高的抽象层次上进行的工作，它将技术上重要的需求实现到系统中。该体系结构为进一步的设计奠定了基础。

设计: 通过在每个抽象层的迭代过程来填充架构所没有的内容的艺术。

架构是“难以改变的设计决策”。

在使用TDD之后，这实际上意味着你的设计一直在变化，我经常发现自己在这个问题上挣扎。上面的定义摘自Martin Fowler的《企业应用程序体系结构模式》

这意味着架构依赖于你的系统的语言、框架和领域。如果你能在5分钟内从Java类中提取出一个接口，这就不再是架构决策了。