architectural

This means that even good architectural decisions can become bad over time.

My argument is this: (1) The most costly issue with a code base has to do with its architectural properties.

And is that because of a large architectural difference starting around v39, compared to earlier versions?

You'll be entrusted to make sound architectural decisions as well as implement your vision effectively.

We had/have a lot of technical debt, but the architectural ones are the hardest to fix (because they cost real capital).

My personal experience with architectural choices is that all of them are great early on when the code base is small.

You try to make the best architectural decision that you can at the time, with the knowledge and resources you have available.

Notice that nowhere in the article is there any mention of what a good architectural choice is, nor any mention of the perception of debt in relation to the size of the system[0].

This is the fallacy I was referring to--architectural soundness has nothing to do with anticipating change.

The reason I bring this up is I am surprised that architectural choice is overwhelmingly the top technical debt concern.

We want everyone on the team to influence our architectural decisions.

At InsiteVR, we’re always pushing the limits of computing power, especially mobile devices, to render highly complex architectural models in VR.

It is important to not conflate "massively parallel" (HPC) and "massively distributed" (Internet-scale), they have different architectural requirements and solve different classes of problem.

About violating "some earlier architectural plan" in the case of libraries: Being able to do this allows CL programmers to freely mix libraries with different "architectural plans" without resorting to some half-baked fusion architecture that has to account for the different styles used by the libraries.

Architectural and design decisions, coding conventions, alternate approaches they rejected, etc.