I think analogizing with structural engineering still fits more than you're giving credit for, at least in terms of how talent does or does not scale in the abs

I think analogizing with structural engineering still fits more than you're giving credit for, at least in terms of how talent does or does not scale in the absence of a formal engineering education. My dad effectively rebuilt every part of our house with only "formal" training as a plumber. My great-grandfather built his house completely from scratch, himself, and picked cotton before that. But neither of them could have built a skyscraper. There's a difference between someone who can build stuff, even incredibly useful stuff, and a true engineer. Software, for whatever reason, just tends to lionize and monetarily reward hackers over engineers. I'm not exactly sure why this is. Maybe we just get so much more to start with? If you wanted to put up a skyscraper or build another Brooklyn Bridge, you pretty much need to put together all of it. Only the land is there already. On the other hand, with software you can seriously stand on the backs of giants. Someone else already laid fiber cables beneath the oceans, put satellites with radios on them calibrated to deal with special relativity in space, processor makers basically use black magic to hide all of the terrible, inefficient coding we do and make it fast anyway, database engines, exponentially cheapening storage, and CDNs do so much of the heavy lifting of caching and delivering content, and we profit. I guess skyscraper builders get some pre-existing infrastructure. They don't need to lay their own roads or build new electrical stations or steel mills. But still, software feels like a business where a lot of people learn quickly how to build their own backyard tool sheds, then go apply to design skyscrapers and get mad when the interviewers expect them to know the principles of physics underlying how it is possible to get 100 stories of steel and glass to not fall over in the wind.