That's like asking, what is culture? Culture is the way you do things in a group of people. Architecture is the way you do things in a software product. You could argue by analogy, then, that architecture is to a software product as culture is to a team. It is how that team has established and chosen its conventions，
Which leads us inevitably to the question of “goodness”? How do you know if an architecture is good? Consider an architecture that isn't built using a strong domain model, and instead relies heavily on stored procedures. That might be OK, or it might not be OK. You could have decided that part of your architecture is to use a really strong domain model and not use stored procedures, right? So an architecture is some reasonable regularity about the structure of the system, the way the team goes about building its software, and how the software responds and adapts to its own environment. How well the architecture responds and adapts, and how well it goes through that construction process, is a measure of whether that architecture is any good.
The system architecture determines how hard or easy it is to implement a given feature. Good architectures are those in which it is considered easy to create the features desired. In that the way to judge whether an architecture is good is whether the architecture is good for the purposes to which it is applied.
The definition of goodness has to be related to fitness for purpose. Is this glove good? I don't know. What are you doing with the glove? Are you throwing snowballs, cooking barbeques, or playing golf? There's a set of changes that are going to occur to a software system over time. Probably the utilitarian or most useful definition of goodness is the answer to this question: are the changes that will keep this system successful in this domain in this product line relatively easy? If they are, then it's probably a good architecture.
精品推荐