<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>SoftwareArchitecture on RenatoTeixeira.com</title><link>https://www.renatoteixeira.com/tags/softwarearchitecture/</link><description>Recent content in SoftwareArchitecture on RenatoTeixeira.com</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.renatoteixeira.com/tags/softwarearchitecture/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Quiet Normalization of Unfounded Decisions in Software Engineering</title><link>https://www.renatoteixeira.com/posts/the-quiet-normalization/</link><pubDate>Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.renatoteixeira.com/posts/the-quiet-normalization/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;One of the most curious — and perhaps most uncomfortable — things about software engineering is that we still make many important decisions on grounds that are far too fragile.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of course, we rarely call this an “unfounded decision.”&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;We prefer better names:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Strategy.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Transformation.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Modernization.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Best practice.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;Vision for the future.&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, quite often, beneath these elegant labels, there is something less noble: imitation, enthusiasm, market pressure, personal preference, or the comfortable belief that what sounds modern must also be correct.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item><item><title>Modernizing legacy systems is not a dispute between the old and the new. It is a discipline of discernment</title><link>https://www.renatoteixeira.com/posts/modernization-not-dispute/</link><pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.renatoteixeira.com/posts/modernization-not-dispute/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;There is a recurring tendency to treat legacy as a historical mistake to be corrected. As if identifying a more current technology, designing a more elegant architecture, and starting a replacement journey were enough to solve the problem once and for all.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But reality rarely organizes itself that way.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Legacy systems&lt;/strong&gt; do not persist simply because organizations resist change. They persist because, at some point, they were successful in sustaining critical operations, absorbing real business complexity, and accommodating, over time, decisions, exceptions, adaptations, and trade-offs that can hardly be captured in a clean architectural diagram.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>