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

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

建筑与设计密切相关;它们之间的主要区别在于我们面对的方向。 建筑面向战略、结构和目的，面向抽象。 设计面向实现与实践，面向具体。

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.)

我非常喜欢这篇文章，因为它提供了将建筑与设计分开的经验法则:

http://www.eden-study.org/articles/2006/abstraction-classes-sw-design_ieesw.pdf

这被称为内涵/局部性假说。关于软件性质的非本地和内涵的陈述是架构性的。局部的和内涵的语句是设计的。

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.