I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly. I'm an architect, and I consider it one of my primary responsibilities to build code on a regular basis.
My personal philosophy is that a practicing software architect must be an internal evangelist and illustrate why things ought to be done one way or the other. The only way to do that is by shutting up and showing some code.
When I was 'coming up' in this industry I was VERY fortunate to have excellent role models to show me how important it was for an architect to be able to explain in detail everything that they may recommend. Honestly, it makes me sad to see so many "architects" out there who make recommendations based on a few opinions that they've read about. In the real world, there are different solutions to different problems, and the only way to know what pegs go into what holes is to know what pegs and holes even exist for a specific problem-set.
Unfortunately, the 'architect' title is relatively new to a lot of organizations who find themselves lacking clear strategy, and a lot of those voids have been filled by people who clearly don't belong there. I hope that eventually that herd will thin out a little bit after enough companies have been bit in the posterior by allowing someone with the incorrect credentials to make their important technology decisions for them.
My personal philosophy is that a practicing software architect must be an internal evangelist and illustrate why things ought to be done one way or the other. The only way to do that is by shutting up and showing some code.
When I was 'coming up' in this industry I was VERY fortunate to have excellent role models to show me how important it was for an architect to be able to explain in detail everything that they may recommend. Honestly, it makes me sad to see so many "architects" out there who make recommendations based on a few opinions that they've read about. In the real world, there are different solutions to different problems, and the only way to know what pegs go into what holes is to know what pegs and holes even exist for a specific problem-set.
Unfortunately, the 'architect' title is relatively new to a lot of organizations who find themselves lacking clear strategy, and a lot of those voids have been filled by people who clearly don't belong there. I hope that eventually that herd will thin out a little bit after enough companies have been bit in the posterior by allowing someone with the incorrect credentials to make their important technology decisions for them.