<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>PaulDavisThe1st</author><text>This is really misreading the whole concept of patterns in both architecture and software. The goal is not to somehow equate or even link the two disciplines. Instead it is to note that when you go about arranging stuff to do stuff (e.g materials to be buildings, or programming languages to be programs), it is likely that there will (over time) emerge ways of doing things (patterns) that you can (and likely should) use over and over again.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s not architecture-envy, it&amp;#x27;s finding a parallel from a different discipline that applies to your own.</text><parent_chain><item><author>jackblemming</author><text>There’s a certain class of programmer who seems to derive great pleasure in comparing programming to architecture. Maybe because architects are cool, or sound more grand than “programmer”. The author mentions Patterns of Software as profound, but in my experience it was mostly empty and contained only references to other work, without adding its own voice or perspective. At worst, it was pretentious and boring.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Timeless Way of Programming</title><url>http://tomasp.net/blog/2022/timeless-way/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>TakeBlaster16</author><text>I feel like people glamorize architecture in general. Sure the Empire State Building was probably fun to design, but 99.9% of architects are just designing bland office buildings or long hallways of apartment boxes. On average it&amp;#x27;s probably just as exciting as a software architect designing their 100th CRUD webapp.</text><parent_chain><item><author>jackblemming</author><text>There’s a certain class of programmer who seems to derive great pleasure in comparing programming to architecture. Maybe because architects are cool, or sound more grand than “programmer”. The author mentions Patterns of Software as profound, but in my experience it was mostly empty and contained only references to other work, without adding its own voice or perspective. At worst, it was pretentious and boring.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The Timeless Way of Programming</title><url>http://tomasp.net/blog/2022/timeless-way/</url></story>