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。

建筑是战略的，而设计是战术的。

架构包括框架、工具、编程范例、基于组件的软件工程标准和高级原则。

而设计是一种与局部约束有关的活动，例如设计模式、编程习惯用语和重构。

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.)

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.

另外，请参考: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%2B1_Architectural_View_Model