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)

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)

架构:架构在建筑的各个阶段创建规划布局 按规格。

设计人员:-设计人员的工作是满足建筑设计的所有基本要求，包括布局的功能、美学和外观。

你说得对，是的。系统的架构是它的“骨架”。它是系统抽象的最高层次。有什么样的数据存储，模块之间如何交互，有什么样的恢复系统。就像设计模式一样，也有架构模式:MVC、3层分层设计等。

软件设计就是设计各个模块/组件。模块x的职责和功能是什么?Y类?它能做什么，不能做什么?可以使用哪些设计模式?

所以简而言之，软件架构更多的是整个系统的设计，而软件设计则强调模块/组件/类的层面。

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.