Why do 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.

• Technologists love Alexander and architects hate him.claim0.946
  Central assertion about the divergent receptions of Alexander's work; Steenson has been asking this for over a decade.
• For technologists, Alexander himself represents 'architecture': he is often the only architect they can name.claim0.822
  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.claim0.802
  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.claim0.766
  Steenson's normative stance on how different groups should engage with Alexander.
• I warn programmers and UX designers not to worship Alexander, and to be critical about his universalizing theories.claim0.752
  Steenson's caution against uncritical adoption of Alexander's work in technology.
• Architects and technologists are arguing about the definition of architecture.claim0.736
  Diagnosis of the core conflict behind the divergent receptions.
• The work of Alexander was more radical than Arts and Crafts architects generally admitted.claim0.735
  Assertion attributed to John Hanson about the radical nature of Alexander's approach.
• As an architect, Alexander has become convinced that the I is certainly real in buildings and must necessarily play a fundamental role in architecture.claim0.735
  Alexander's personal scientific and professional conclusion stated in the Mid-Book Appendix.