Software Design vs. Software Architecture

Architecture is strategic, while Design is tactical.

Architecture comprises the frameworks, tools, programming paradigms, component-based software engineering standards, high-level principles..

While design is an activity concerned with local constraints, such as design patterns, programming idioms, and refactorings.

I found this as I was looking for simple distinction between architecture and design myself;
What do you think of this way of looking at them:

• architecture is "what" we're building;
• design is "how" we're building;

In some descriptions of the SDLC (Software Development Life Cycle) they are interchangeable, but the consesus is that they are distinct. They are at the same time: different (1) stages, (2) areas of responsibility, and (3) levels of decision-making.

• Architecture is the bigger picture: the choice of frameworks, languages, scope, goals, and high-level methodologies (Rational, waterfall, agile, etc.).
• Design is the smaller picture: the plan for how code will be organized; how the contracts between different parts of the system will look; the ongoing implementation of the project's methodologies and goals. Specification are written during this stage.

These two stages will seem to blend together for different reasons.

1. Smaller projects often don't have enough scope to separate out planning into these to stages.
2. A project might be a part of a larger project, and hence parts of both stages are already decided. (There are already existing databases, conventions, standards, protocols, frameworks, reusable code, etc.)
3. Newer ways of thinking about the SDLC (see Agile methodologies) somewhat rearrange this traditional approach. Design (architecture to a lesser extent) takes place throughout the SDLC on purpose. There are often more iterations where the whole process happens over and over.
4. Software development is complicated and difficult to plan anyway, but clients/managers/salespeople usually make it harder by changing goals and requirements mid-stream. Design and even architectural decisions must bemade later in the project whether that is the plan or not.

Even if the stages or areas of responsibility blend together and happen all over the place, it is always good to know what level of decision-making is happening. (We could go on forever with this. I'm trying to keep it a summary.) I'll end with: Even if it seems your project has no formal architectural or design stage/AOR/documentaiton, it IS happening whether anyone is consciously doing it or not. If no one decides to do architecture, then a default one happens that is probably poor. Ditto for design. These concepts are almost more important if there are no formal stages representing them.

You're right yes. The architecture of a system is its 'skeleton'. It's the highest level of abstraction of a system. What kind of data storage is present, how do modules interact with each other, what recovery systems are in place. Just like design patterns, there are architectural patterns: MVC, 3-tier layered design, etc.

Software design is about designing the individual modules / components. What are the responsibilities, functions, of module x? Of class Y? What can it do, and what not? What design patterns can be used?

So in short, Software architecture is more about the design of the entire system, while software design emphasizes on module / component / class level.