An incomplete list of classic papers every Software Architect should read
From the post:
Every one of us has their favourite papers in their domain. Every once in a while, we find a paper so fascinating that we want to share it with everyone.
Not all may agree it’s a good idea to read the original paper. Some might prefer a modern textbook exposition of it. Nevertheless a more detailed look to our past can be helpful when trying to understand the future, and provides us with a more polished understanding.
Below is a list of “classic” papers that have shaped computing history. Some of which will become classics (such as the bitcoin paper). Some of which were perceived radical perhaps, at the time, but turned out to influence terminology and became pillars of computer science.
If you have additional papers which you find missing, please post them as a comment (including reason for why you think they’re special) on this reddit thread.
Often seen as an apology for having invented the FORTRAN language, Backus’ [1978] Turing Award lecture was one of the most influential and now most-often cited papers advocating the functional programming paradigm. Backus coined the term “word-at-a-time programming” to capture the essence of imperative languages, showed how such languages were inextricably tied to the von Neumann machine, and gave a convincing argument why such languages were not going to meet the demands of modern software development. That this argument was being made by the person who is given the most credit for designing FORTRAN and who also had significant influence on the development of ALGOL led substantial weight to the functional thesis. The exposure given to Backus’ paper was one of the best things that could have happened to the field of functional programming, which at the time was certainly not considered mainstream.
I appreciate “classic” papers, particularly ones that support something I already think is correct. Like functional programming languages.
But, to get the most value from these papers, read them as though your cube mate asked for comments.
Yes they are “classics” but if we enshrine them to be cited and not read, we will gain very little from them.
Enjoy!