4 ms·
This seems a bit like saying a physicist is more capable of understanding how satellites work than an engineer who designs satellites because he knows the unde
by sidlls 10y ago
This seems a bit like saying a physicist is more capable of understanding how satellites work than an engineer who designs satellites because he knows the underlying theory better. It's kind of true in some sense but doesn't really capture the context or nuance that goes into a non-trivial engineering effort, or the more general case asserted by the topic author.
- RandomOpinion 10y agoThat's not a very good analogy. Most would agree, I think, that the separation between CS, as taught in most programs, and professional software development is far, far smaller than the separation between physics and aerospace engineering.
- sidlls 10y agoWell, that's another discussion altogether. I'm of the view that the closeness of professional software development to academic CS is one of the biggest problems in the industry from the perspective of regarding it as an engineering discipline.
- tracker1 10y agoAgreed.. software engineering, as usually practiced, is definitely a craft. It's a very technical craft, but still a craft discipline.
- yomly 10y agoI think that's just a function of how much money is in the field - more people end up in industry than academia AND industry has an even bigger interest in pushing the boundaries. This leads to blurring between the lines of industry and academia. I'm sure if there were more money in subatomic physics we'd observe the same thing.
- mockery 10y agoNot really. More like: if the way you make satellites dramatically changes on a continuing basis, then some solid knowledge in physics might prepare you better to adapt to the changing times than being trained in the current methodology.