5 ms·
Ask HN: What is the Holy Grail for Software Engineering?
Physics has its Theory of Everything - what's out there for Software Engineering?
- gvb 16y agoSolve the P vs. NP problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem
- alt 16y agoThe Holy Grail of software engineering — the one true approach to building software systems that can be applied, universally, to any and all software projects. http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~se4921/PDF/CACM/p15-glass.pdf http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~se4921/PDF/CACM/p15-glass.pdf
- invertedlambda 16y agoA programming language that does exactly what you want, exactly how you want it, exactly when you need it.
- jashkenas 16y agoHoly grail, eh? Well, if you really want to swing for the fences... * Programming a computer in plain English. * Teaching a machine to compose (real) music, or draw (real) art. * Simulating a brain -- or, even better, emulating one. * A programming language that makes it possible to write code that's worthy of being read as literature.
- redthrowaway 16y agoWhile I agree those are worthy goals, the middle two are CS, not SENG. Real AI is probably the loftiest goal in CS, but it requires a lot more theory work before anyone will be able to implement it.
- trizk 16y agoA self programming, learning computing machine.
- balakk 16y agoEnterprise software perspective - IT managed directly by business users. In that, the system can accept natural language descriptions of business logic, resolve ambiguity, and can self-modify, maintain, and heal itself. In other words, a virtual software architect.
- d0mine 16y agoSuch system would be necessarily self-conscious with all severe problems it implies and human reproduction already produces such systems.
- daniel-cussen 16y agoThere's really three problems I can think of, in decreasing order of difficulty: 1) writing an AI, 2) proving P=/=NP, and 3) founding a 200-billion dollar company.
- steveklabnik 16y agoThese are computer science, not software engineering. Oh, and #3 is neither...
- ctkrohn 16y agoBuilding software like we build bridges. There are a lot of things wrong with this analogy, but I think it still encapsulates a nice ideal. We'd like to get it right the first time, and make it last with minimal maintenance. (This is for software engineering, not computer science)
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoPhysical construction envy is naive. Many bridge-building projects go over time and over budget. Most bridges have a feature list fixed years before construction is begun. Bridges are static. Even draw-bridges do not adapt to their environment automatically, but require human intervention. There is a categorical error when you try to apply construction practices of static things to the construction practices of dynamic things, hence the failure of waterfall. Note that the original papers that introduced waterfall actually suggest a system that more closely resembles iterative development than BUFD.
- regularfry 16y agoIf we found a way to make BDUF work reliably, it would transform the industry overnight, and turn software development into a recognisable engineering discipline. The fact that we haven't yet, and that one particular approach failed, doesn't mean that it isn't possible. Nor does it mean we should stop trying. Iterative development is an interesting stop-gap, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all we should be looking for.
- evanrmurphy 16y ago> There are a lot of things wrong with this analogy I think so. As a rule, when something can be developed incrementally rather than planned and engineered, it should be. This makes mistakes less expensive, allowing you arrive at a satisfactory end result in a fraction of the time. This is one of the huge advantages of the web over desktop software. Initial delivery to the desktop and subsequent updates cost significant time and headache. Redeploying to the server is just a matter of running a script.
- 16y ago
- jamespitts 16y agoBecoming more than human.
- robsmith 16y agoUsers that read the manual
- joeld42 16y agoA general purpose memory manager that doesn't suck.
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoMinimizing the cost of producing secure, reliable, efficient systems that fulfill business objectives and are inexpensive to modify (where modifications preserve reliability and performance.) Included in the cost must be the risk of finding engineers to provide maintenance and changes.
- evanrmurphy 16y agoTo make software so extensible that you never have to rewrite it, or so painless to rewrite that you never mind.
- binaryfinery 16y agoThe Singularity. http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html I think Vinge explains it better than Kurzweil.
- evanrmurphy 16y agoVinge's "superhuman intelligence" rhetoric bothers me because it suggests that intelligence is a one-dimensional quantity. I don't think this makes sense except in the context of specific domains. For example, a basic calculator has superhuman intelligence when it comes to arithmetic, because it can evaluate arbitrary expressions much faster than a human can and doesn't make mistakes. But it's dumb about everything else. Update: The child comment by binaryfinery points to where Vinge addresses this. Sorry, I failed to add the disclaimer that I only skimmed the article.
- binaryfinery 16y agoFTFA: "Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any any man however clever"
- Tichy 16y agoDoing correct time estimates? Finding an engineering methodology that actually works?
- curt 16y agoHow to talk to women? Couldn't resist.
- kingsidharth 16y agoIt's a Holy Grail. It's a mystery!
- alnayyir 16y agoHere's a real holy grail of software engineering that might actually be attainable without getting Strong AI. Significant code reuse without using a lot of hacks. I think Lisp and Ruby made great strides towards this, but I don't think we're quite there yet.
- RK 16y agoProvably secure, stable, error free code.
- johnbender 16y agoA model checker that somehow cleverly handles external input and statespace. Lacking that, haskell's type system :D
- tzs 16y agoA lot of the suggestions so far have really been for CS, not software engineering. For software engineering, how about a practical way to do proofs of correctness for large real-world systems written in mainstream languages?
- rnicholson 16y ago"Good, Cheap and Fast" and not being forced to pick two.
- dheerosaur 16y agoSomething that could have answered this question for us.
- jpr 16y agoKISS
- Tycho 16y agoYou know that scene in Independence Day when Jeff Goldbloom flies into the mothership and uploads a program to shut it down? That. No, I don't mean an alien empire running on Mac OS 7.6.5, I mean extreme interoperability so software can rewrite itself to work on a different platform (self-porting, in other words). Having said that, their firewalls were lacking!