6 ms·

You do understand that this is "The SEI: The Leader in Software Engineering and Cybersecurity", and the blog post is written by the SEI tech staff? If our "Sof

You do understand that this is "The SEI: The Leader in Software Engineering and Cybersecurity", and the blog post is written by the SEI tech staff? If our "Software engineering leaders" cannot handle simple tasks, what does it say about our profession?

twblalock 7y ago
Do you really think the engineering leaders are the ones who maintain the web servers?
- pojzon 7y ago
  The point is: "If the leaders cannot lead the people under to do what seems like a trivial thing, then mby they should not be called leaders at all?"
  - twblalock 7y ago
    What makes you think the webmasters at a large university are "under" the CS professors? They probably never met each other and work in completely different departments.
anonytrary 7y ago
> If our "Software engineering leaders" cannot handle simple tasks, what does it say about our profession? It says that they have more important problems to be working on than managing their university's web-servers, which a CS undergrad could do.
- FakeComments 7y ago
  But working on “more important” problems, particularly abstract ones, while the basics fail is precisely the complaint about architects: They’re so busy with their “more important” issues, that the whole thing fails in practice. If they truly had organizational wisdom we could utilize, why don’t they deploy it themselves, to keep their website online during small spikes in traffic? If their work can’t even be applied to their own organization successfully, why should we believe it will be successful elsewhere?
  - cc81 7y ago
    How is that even relevant though? She is commenting on that software should be involved earlier in huge military projects that have previously been dominated by hardware and you are nitpicking that the university web server cannot handle the traffic?
    - FakeComments 7y ago
      Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? “Physician, heal thyself.”
      - anonytrary 7y ago
        > Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? This is such a weak argument. Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? This entire discussion is trivial.
        FakeComments 7y ago
        > Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? They didn’t cite examples in support. > Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? >> can’t be (or haven’t been) Similarly, I didn’t assume that the university website had been — I pointed out that they hadn’t been successfully, either because of failure or lack of application. But the implication is that theoretical solutions you can’t apply in a simplified domain are likely to be wrong — and that they’ve failed to show success in a simplified domain before pushing those techniques to major projects. It’s not trivial at all, it’s precisely the problem with architects: they pitch theory based grand designs, but from organizations that can’t solve simple problems successfully. Again, why should we believe an organization that can’t run a website can successfully manage large scale projects? Despite downvotes and snarky, inaccurate replies, no one has an answer for that question.
- pojzon 7y ago
  What it says about the managers and architects if they cannot lead the CS devs to do what they were supposed to do ? I find it hilarious.

twblalock 7y ago

Do you really think the engineering leaders are the ones who maintain the web servers?

pojzon 7y ago
The point is: "If the leaders cannot lead the people under to do what seems like a trivial thing, then mby they should not be called leaders at all?"
- twblalock 7y ago
  What makes you think the webmasters at a large university are "under" the CS professors? They probably never met each other and work in completely different departments.

anonytrary 7y ago

> If our "Software engineering leaders" cannot handle simple tasks, what does it say about our profession? It says that they have more important problems to be working on than managing their university's web-servers, which a CS undergrad could do.

FakeComments 7y ago
But working on “more important” problems, particularly abstract ones, while the basics fail is precisely the complaint about architects: They’re so busy with their “more important” issues, that the whole thing fails in practice. If they truly had organizational wisdom we could utilize, why don’t they deploy it themselves, to keep their website online during small spikes in traffic? If their work can’t even be applied to their own organization successfully, why should we believe it will be successful elsewhere?
- cc81 7y ago
  How is that even relevant though? She is commenting on that software should be involved earlier in huge military projects that have previously been dominated by hardware and you are nitpicking that the university web server cannot handle the traffic?
  - FakeComments 7y ago
    Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? “Physician, heal thyself.”
    - anonytrary 7y ago
      > Yes — their engineering development principles can’t be (or haven’t been) used to successfully design and deploy a well understood technology like a website that can handle small spikes in traffic; why should we believe they have useful advice for more difficult projects? This is such a weak argument. Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? This entire discussion is trivial.
      - FakeComments 7y ago
        > Where did you hear that their principles were not being applied in real life? They didn’t cite examples in support. > Why do you automatically assume the university's website is built on their principles? >> can’t be (or haven’t been) Similarly, I didn’t assume that the university website had been — I pointed out that they hadn’t been successfully, either because of failure or lack of application. But the implication is that theoretical solutions you can’t apply in a simplified domain are likely to be wrong — and that they’ve failed to show success in a simplified domain before pushing those techniques to major projects. It’s not trivial at all, it’s precisely the problem with architects: they pitch theory based grand designs, but from organizations that can’t solve simple problems successfully. Again, why should we believe an organization that can’t run a website can successfully manage large scale projects? Despite downvotes and snarky, inaccurate replies, no one has an answer for that question.
pojzon 7y ago
What it says about the managers and architects if they cannot lead the CS devs to do what they were supposed to do ? I find it hilarious.