> But is [coding] the most intuitive and productive approach? Intuitive: no. Productive: Well, we haven't found anything better for building software. What wou

> But is [coding] the most intuitive and productive approach? Intuitive: no. Productive: Well, we haven't found anything better for building software. What would you like to compare it to? > I used to make electronic music with a program called Reason. I loved it because it let you drag and drop wires between different machines, showing you exactly how everything was connected. Ever seen a call graph of a non-trivial piece of software? It shows you how everything is connected, but it isn't usually useful on an intuitive level. > But most of what we do is not engineering. Being an engineer is about solving new problems, and about deep thinking. It’s intellectual work. Who's "we"? I write software when I can't find something suitable that's already been written. I design it, work out use-cases, come up with a set of requirements, and build it. > Real engineers code, they say, and coding is what makes you a great engineer. "Real engineers" do a lot of things. "Code" is somewhere in the middle of the list, after a whole lot of analysis and design, and before a support cycle. Not all people that are called engineers are engineers. > These are just a few examples of how engineers waste time duplicating the same basic features over and over. ...but as meaningfully different implementations. Unless the author would like to adapt some C code. The stone wheel is heavy and hard to carve. The wood wheel is easier, but flimsier. The metal wheel is easier, stronger, and lighter, but it's still "reinventing the wheel". Doesn't mean that it isn't sometimes worthwhile. > Software engineers are grossly overpaid Define "overpaid". I'm paid roughly what the market will support in my area. If the market's broken, then it's ready for disruption, and you're in a position to become very rich when you figure out how to take advantage of it. The author bounces around all over the place. I like the core idea of the article (which I take to be simplifying work where possible and avoiding duplicate effort), but there's so much slop and fluff around it that a basically good idea is just buried.