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.

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。

我同意其中的许多解释;本质上，我们认识到软件系统的架构设计和详细设计之间的区别。

虽然设计师的目标是在开发所需的规格中尽可能精确和具体;架构师本质上的目标是指定系统的结构和全局行为，就像详细设计开始时所要求的那样。

优秀的架构师会避免过度规范——架构不能过分指定，但要足够，(架构)决策只针对那些风险处理成本最高的方面建立，并有效地提供一个框架(“通用性”)，在这个框架内可以进行详细设计，即局部功能的可变性。

实际上，体系结构过程或生命周期只是遵循这个主题——足够的抽象级别来概述(体系结构上的)重要业务需求的结构，并将更多细节留给设计阶段以实现更具体的可交付成果。

我喜欢Roy Thomas Fielding在他的论文中对什么是软件架构的定义和解释: 架构风格与基于网络的软件架构设计

软件体系结构是软件系统在其操作的某个阶段的运行时元素的抽象。一个系统可能由许多抽象层次和许多操作阶段组成，每一个都有自己的软件体系结构。

他强调“运行时元素”和“抽象层次”。

是的，对我来说听起来不错。设计是你要做的事情，而架构是将设计的各个部分连接在一起的方式。它可以是语言不可知的，但通常会指定要使用的技术，例如LAMP vs Windows, Web服务vs RPC。

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)