2 ms·

I think that attempts to unify traditional forms of engineering with software engineering are doomed to failure, because they're so different as vocations. For

by cyphar 9y ago

I think that attempts to unify traditional forms of engineering with software engineering are doomed to failure, because they're so different as vocations. For example, the design and construction stages are indistinguishable (any sufficiently detailed design of software is effectively an implementation of the design). Normal engineering is not the same, and is likely one of the reasons that software prototyping often become the final product (which is definitely not true for traditional engineering). Fields like electrical engineering that use software engineering quite heavily are only similar to traditional engineering because of the traditional components of the other engineering discipline (electrical engineering requires circuit-board design that is distinct from fabrication, and prototypes are rarely promoted directly to the final product).

jwdunne 9y ago
That's true. I don't think that there are major things in those disciplines that are directly applicable in a timeless fashion. My main goal is to find out how these disciplines came about. How exactly did they settle upon their body of knowledge such that they can produce reliable results in the way they do. Not so much what those methods are, but rather how they came about. What is the common thread there and how, if at all possible, can we use that accelerate the same maturity in software? Maybe it's a process that has to run its course? Maybe at 80 years old, if I live that long, I'll look on a very different kind of software development. With that said, I also have Fred Brooks whispering "no silver bullet" into my ear on the other shoulder.