Technologists love Alexander and architects hate him.

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

• Why do technologists love Alexander and architects hate him?question0.946
  Central organizing question Steenson has posed for over a decade; reveals fundamental disagreement about meaning of 'architecture' itself.
• For technologists, Alexander himself represents 'architecture': he is often the only architect they can name.claim0.853
  Observation about Alexander's outsized symbolic role in software communities.
• I defend Alexander against architects who have barely read his books but hold disdain for him.claim0.820
  Part of her defense of Alexander's serious consideration.
• Architects should understand Alexander's influence, programmers should critique it, and all should be suspicious of the monolithic white male architect trope.claim0.793
  Steenson's normative stance on how different groups should engage with Alexander.
• The work of Alexander was more radical than Arts and Crafts architects generally admitted.claim0.765
  Assertion attributed to John Hanson about the radical nature of Alexander's approach.
• Architects and technologists are arguing about the definition of architecture.claim0.760
  Diagnosis of the core conflict behind the divergent receptions.
• I warn programmers and UX designers not to worship Alexander, and to be critical about his universalizing theories.claim0.760
  Steenson's caution against uncritical adoption of Alexander's work in technology.
• As an architect, Alexander has become convinced that the I is certainly real in buildings and must necessarily play a fundamental role in architecture.claim0.755
  Alexander's personal scientific and professional conclusion stated in the Mid-Book Appendix.