4 ms·

Software development and engineering is mature? I would disagree strongly. I don't see any evidence that there is a particular established right way to develop

by GlennS 10y ago

Software development and engineering is mature? I would disagree strongly. I don't see any evidence that there is a particular established right way to develop software yet. We're still muddling around. I really worry that if someone tries to establish a software engineering system, then that someone will be unreasonably confident, and probably wedded to a particular method or process. Then we'll all be stuck having to prove we know UML (or the equivalent 2017 fad) inside-out in order to get a job. Anyway, isn't this what university degrees are supposed to be doing? Maybe we just need a more effective way to shame universities that graduate computer scientists who can't program?

rafiki6 10y ago
As with other professions, we can always create a "professional degree" that follows the standard 4 year degree. Similar to how medicine and law behave. Or how you basically have to spend the equivalent of a year studying to receive your CFA charter. Now further to your point about software not being mature, I'd say the evidence is clear. Software design patterns and languages are actually rather consistent. Software language paradigms are pretty much set. http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms Further, that standard commonly used algos and data structures that make a good design are established and basically a standard part of every modern language. What does seem to be rapidly changing is the framework du jour where for some reason we keep reinventing the wheel thinking that we are doing things better when in actuality we just keep creating competing frameworks that don't necessarily benefit anyone. I'm all for competition but eventually a clear winner is defined in a space and it might be better to contribute to improving that winner than not. Finally I'd say software is in a better place now than medicine was when it was about the same age. We are much more evidence driven (but still lots of opinions persist). And as with any other scientific discipline (because let's face it that's what software is) it will change with new literature so of course we should have a continuing education component. The reality is, the only party that doesn't benefit from having a credentialed software practitioner is companies because now they have their pick of the litter and can control prices. But if all of a sudden the barrier to entry to becoming a software engineer is high and only licensed practitioners can allow code to be released into the world, we become an expensive resource.

by GlennS 10y ago

rafiki6 10y ago

As with other professions, we can always create a "professional degree" that follows the standard 4 year degree. Similar to how medicine and law behave. Or how you basically have to spend the equivalent of a year studying to receive your CFA charter. Now further to your point about software not being mature, I'd say the evidence is clear. Software design patterns and languages are actually rather consistent. Software language paradigms are pretty much set. http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms http://wiki.c2.com/?ThereAreExactlyThreeParadigms Further, that standard commonly used algos and data structures that make a good design are established and basically a standard part of every modern language. What does seem to be rapidly changing is the framework du jour where for some reason we keep reinventing the wheel thinking that we are doing things better when in actuality we just keep creating competing frameworks that don't necessarily benefit anyone. I'm all for competition but eventually a clear winner is defined in a space and it might be better to contribute to improving that winner than not. Finally I'd say software is in a better place now than medicine was when it was about the same age. We are much more evidence driven (but still lots of opinions persist). And as with any other scientific discipline (because let's face it that's what software is) it will change with new literature so of course we should have a continuing education component. The reality is, the only party that doesn't benefit from having a credentialed software practitioner is companies because now they have their pick of the litter and can control prices. But if all of a sudden the barrier to entry to becoming a software engineer is high and only licensed practitioners can allow code to be released into the world, we become an expensive resource.