> I've a sneaking suspicion that bridge building would look more like software if we could drive over AutoCAD models. Why on earth would you want bridge constr

> I've a sneaking suspicion that bridge building would look more like software if we could drive over AutoCAD models. Why on earth would you want bridge construction to be more like software engineering? Bridges work. We know how to build them bug free, every time. We don't know how to make working, bug-free software. There's even an old, not very funny joke about exactly this comparison. (Spoiler: it doesn't flatter the code monkeys.) You might want to look up the Cynefin model[1]. Bridges are complicated, software is complex. This supports your bent towards experimentation, sort of; when solutions are unknown, that's required. But documentation and planning are part of what turns complex in to complicated, and that's a big part of the trick to successfully delivering big chunks of relatively bug-free code. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework