4 ms·
That is kind of unfair :) Typically infrastructure engineers get to (or rather have to) over-engineer things. When you build a bridge you don't build somethin
by chrisan 11y ago
That is kind of unfair :)
Typically infrastructure engineers get to (or rather have to) over-engineer things. When you build a bridge you don't build something that is _just_ good enough to hold X cars. You design it to hold X + Y% and/or have Z redundancy
Most software doesn't put peoples lives in danger and thus doesn't get the budget/resources to put in NASA like engineering in software
- jacquesm 11y agoThat's why our motto is 'move fast and break things' right?
- tonyarkles 11y agoA lot of engineering is about meeting requirements while keeping costs down. As the joke goes... "Anyone can build a bridge that stands; it takes an engineer to build a bridge that just barely stands"
- enraged_camel 11y agoI realize it's a joke, but even then it's not a good one. The reality is actually the other way around. Anyone can build a bridge that barely stands, but it takes an engineer to build one that still stands after an earthquake.
- tonyarkles 11y agoUhhhh... see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_bridges I'm not sure if the original designers intended for these to have multi-millenia design lives, but I bet that they could have been made much cheaper...
- enraged_camel 11y agoIf they were made much cheaper, they likely would not be standing today.
- tonyarkles 11y agoPrecisely! Engineering usually isn't about designing the best X, it's about designing the cheapest X that meets all of its requirements. Edit: even if the requirement is for X to be the best in the world (which, as a non-quantifiable requirement, makes me uneasy), the goal would still be to do it as cost effectively as possible.