6 ms·

They aren't "hackers", they're engineers

gamble 15y ago
Speaking as an engineer, no one in the financial industry remotely qualifies as an engineer. A real engineer applies physical laws to create a product with some certainty of functioning properly. Wall street 'engineers' create products that don't obey physical laws - and on a theoretical level, probably can't, since their very existence changes the rules of the market. The financial crisis also demonstrated that even the people creating these instruments don't understand them, much less the customers... and none of them particularly care if spectacular failures results, as long as they aren't the ones left holding the bag.
- ycombiefan 15y ago
  get off your high horse. you have a superiority complex and you think you are better than software engineers. who the fuk r u to tell other people they are not true engineers? lol
- starpilot 15y ago
  That would also apply to software engineers. What physical laws do they apply?
  - gamble 15y ago
    Most/all people who call themselves software engineers are not engineers. I'm not convinced that software engineering itself is actually a field of engineering, for that very reason. At most universities, software engineering is just a weak-sauce mashup of basic engineering classes, computer engineering, and compsci. I don't believe there is any agreement about the basic principles of software construction. Just because people call themselves software engineers and schools teach it as a discrete program, doesn't make them true engineers. There are plenty of schools that offer 'financial engineering' programs. IMO, programmers have a lot more in common with traditional artisan trades than engineering. They call themselves 'software engineers' because skilled technical workers prefer to associate with their cultural equals in an established white-collar profession than blue-collar craftsmen.
    - zmanji 15y ago
      I disagree, by definition in most jurisdictions, being an Engineer is being accredited by the local Engineering body. In Canada the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board [1] accredits undergraduate programs that teach the field of Software Engineering. I attend such a program at the University of Waterloo [2][3]. After I graduate I can write the exams offered by Professional Engineers Ontario [4]. I think this makes Software Engineering a field of Engineering. In regards to what is taught at universities, my program involves courses on Engineering Design, Computer Engineering and Computer Science, but it also has classes on what constitutes Object-Oriented design, HCI, etc. I think those courses are more than enough to teach students on the basic principles of software construction. Also, what do you define the "basic principles of software construction" to be? [1] http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/index.cfm http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/index.cfm [2] http://uwaterloo.ca/ http://uwaterloo.ca/ [3] http://www.softeng.uwaterloo.ca/ http://www.softeng.uwaterloo.ca/ [4] http://www.peo.on.ca/ http://www.peo.on.ca/
      - gamble 15y ago
        I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see accreditation of engineering programs as proof that software engineering is a legitimate field of engineering. The problem for me is that there don't seem to be any basic principles of software construction. Most programs just teach a selection of software development fad methodologies. A decade ago, most programs taught some variation of waterfall development. Now they tend to teach some variation of agile development. As far as I can tell, there's no scholarship to support one method over the other - it's pure fashion and industry demand. (The decline of academic research on software construction methods since the 80s is another problem) Look at software engineering programs in another ten years and I'm sure you'll see a different mix of classes emphasizing the business trends of the day. In comparison, you could look at the curriculum for almost any electrical engineering program from thirty years ago and you would see almost the same classes as a modern program: circuit theory, E&M, electric machines, control, communication systems, etc. The only significant difference would be the addition of courses on software and digital electronics.
        15y ago

Speaking as an engineer, no one in the financial industry remotely qualifies as an engineer. A real engineer applies physical laws to create a product with some certainty of functioning properly. Wall street 'engineers' create products that don't obey physical laws - and on a theoretical level, probably can't, since their very existence changes the rules of the market. The financial crisis also demonstrated that even the people creating these instruments don't understand them, much less the customers... and none of them particularly care if spectacular failures results, as long as they aren't the ones left holding the bag.

ycombiefan 15y ago
get off your high horse. you have a superiority complex and you think you are better than software engineers. who the fuk r u to tell other people they are not true engineers? lol
starpilot 15y ago
That would also apply to software engineers. What physical laws do they apply?
- gamble 15y ago
  Most/all people who call themselves software engineers are not engineers. I'm not convinced that software engineering itself is actually a field of engineering, for that very reason. At most universities, software engineering is just a weak-sauce mashup of basic engineering classes, computer engineering, and compsci. I don't believe there is any agreement about the basic principles of software construction. Just because people call themselves software engineers and schools teach it as a discrete program, doesn't make them true engineers. There are plenty of schools that offer 'financial engineering' programs. IMO, programmers have a lot more in common with traditional artisan trades than engineering. They call themselves 'software engineers' because skilled technical workers prefer to associate with their cultural equals in an established white-collar profession than blue-collar craftsmen.
  - zmanji 15y ago
    I disagree, by definition in most jurisdictions, being an Engineer is being accredited by the local Engineering body. In Canada the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board [1] accredits undergraduate programs that teach the field of Software Engineering. I attend such a program at the University of Waterloo [2][3]. After I graduate I can write the exams offered by Professional Engineers Ontario [4]. I think this makes Software Engineering a field of Engineering. In regards to what is taught at universities, my program involves courses on Engineering Design, Computer Engineering and Computer Science, but it also has classes on what constitutes Object-Oriented design, HCI, etc. I think those courses are more than enough to teach students on the basic principles of software construction. Also, what do you define the "basic principles of software construction" to be? [1] http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/index.cfm http://www.engineerscanada.ca/e/index.cfm [2] http://uwaterloo.ca/ http://uwaterloo.ca/ [3] http://www.softeng.uwaterloo.ca/ http://www.softeng.uwaterloo.ca/ [4] http://www.peo.on.ca/ http://www.peo.on.ca/
    - gamble 15y ago
      I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see accreditation of engineering programs as proof that software engineering is a legitimate field of engineering. The problem for me is that there don't seem to be any basic principles of software construction. Most programs just teach a selection of software development fad methodologies. A decade ago, most programs taught some variation of waterfall development. Now they tend to teach some variation of agile development. As far as I can tell, there's no scholarship to support one method over the other - it's pure fashion and industry demand. (The decline of academic research on software construction methods since the 80s is another problem) Look at software engineering programs in another ten years and I'm sure you'll see a different mix of classes emphasizing the business trends of the day. In comparison, you could look at the curriculum for almost any electrical engineering program from thirty years ago and you would see almost the same classes as a modern program: circuit theory, E&M, electric machines, control, communication systems, etc. The only significant difference would be the addition of courses on software and digital electronics.
      - 15y ago