6 ms·

this level of rigor always makes me snicker at the engineering in "software engineering"

by ausbah 5y ago

markus_zhang 5y ago
You can probably snicker at most engineering in "X engineering".
jl6 5y ago
This is how you are supposed to build software too.
- danielheath 5y ago
  Who supposed that? Broken software can be fixed cheaply after the fact. Yeah, it’s cheaper if you find the bugs earlier but it shouldn’t come as any surprise that pre-validation is more extensive in systems that are expensive to change.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    There are lots of different types of software. There are phone note apps and control systems for jets and artificial hearts
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    All that falls within the same paradigm, it's just now that now your user requirements have a little flexibility around fault tolerance. You still have SLAs to manage and meet.
- cortesoft 5y ago
  Whether you are “supposed” to do that or not really depends on what kind of software you are building.
russtrotter 5y ago
Fair point, but the software that eventually ends up in flying space hardware has usually been put to a similar test.
thelittleone 5y ago
Likewise... I was pretty impressed with myself in the 90s as a young guy passing the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer exam. "According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the first recorded 'engineer' was Imhotep. He happened to be the builder of the Step Pyramid at Ṣaqqārah, Egypt." [link] I look forward to drinking ale with Imhotep (and NASA JW Space Telescope engineers) in the great heavenly hall of engineers. https://interestingengineering.com/the-origin-of-the-word-engineering https://interestingengineering.com/the-origin-of-the-word-en...
wumpus 5y ago
One of the best talks I've heard recently was by an early-20s engineer talking about safety-critical software for trains. Yes, it's very different from most software engineering. No need to snicker, just do the appropriate thing for your situation.
- boppo1 5y ago
  Can you link the talk or post its title?
  - wumpus 5y ago
    Sorry, it was at an off-the-record conference. As a result it was a very candid talk!
  - rmak 5y ago
    May this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hB_ghSWMoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hB_ghSWMoQ
jacquesm 5y ago
Precisely. Besides aerospace there aren't many industries that know how to do software well.
- crgwbr 5y ago
  Given Boeing’s recent history, I’m not sure aerospace knows how to do software well either.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    That's a regulatory problem, not a software development problem. Simply put: that plane should have never been certified under that type.
    - hef19898 5y ago
      True. I would even argue that the software and hardware Boeing developed did exactly what it was supposed to do.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  In terms of software development and testing practices, what the military/aerospace/medical industries do would never scale to any other industry. If the law were to mandate those practices across the board, that might sound great, but it won't matter because you won't be able to afford the resulting products.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Not necessarily advocating for it, but if that would mean less bloatware, de-facto spy-ware and lousy, pointless apps, or god forbid even les social media apps, I would call that a net positive.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      It would catapult the industry back to the 1990s, at best. How "at best" is interpreted is obviously up to the individual, of course.
eagsalazar2 5y ago
Good god, please stop this misguided snarkiness. Comparing software engineering (or 99.99% of EE, ME, CE, etc) to the web telescope, then haughtily using that comparison as a way to dismiss the entire industry as not really being engineering at all is just ridiculous. I have spent almost 10 years as an EE and another 12 as software engineer and the idea that the level of rigor in EE or ME is any higher than high caliber software teams is just laughable. CI? Detailed process and best practices for review, readability, reusability, testability, security... I won't even go on, most EE teams I've encountered are laughable on all those fronts, all practices that are very common in software engineering. If you think otherwise I highly doubt you have real-world exposure to the processes generally followed by those other disciplines. I do, FYI they are just regular jackasses like all of us :) Also, guess what? The web telescope has a ton of software on it. I suppose that is just "software engineering"? (in quotes, har har) Look, there are terrible teams doing terrible or very simplistic software work. The same is true in all engineering disciplines and it is of course true that in all engineering disciplines (including software) there are also teams operating with a high degree of passion and rigor in creating very complex things. So yeah, please stop with these silly and really pretty insulting comments.
- eagsalazar2 5y ago
  Also, consider that a half-way complex piece of software (from our outside POV) is enormously more complex than your average IC, vehicle (if you exclude the mountain of software controlling it), or general "engineering" project in other disciplines. Obviously that isn't always true (CPUs, James Web telescope, for example are also enormously complex) but most seemingly simple things you use every day (random example: Grubhub) are massively complicated to build, evolve, and keep running each day. Dismissing them as not real engineering is really ignorant and rude. The ME and EE associated with creating new product like the Nest Thermostat (for example) are, by comparison with something like Grubhub, of trivial engineering complexity (although still very respectable engineering efforts)
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > seemingly simple things you use every day (random example: Grubhub) are massively complicated to build, evolve, and keep running each day What exactly is massively complicated about a predatory aggregator site compared to a vehicle?

this level of rigor always makes me snicker at the engineering in "software engineering"

by ausbah 5y ago

this level of rigor always makes me snicker at the engineering in "software engineering"

markus_zhang 5y ago

You can probably snicker at most engineering in "X engineering".

jl6 5y ago

This is how you are supposed to build software too.

danielheath 5y ago
Who supposed that? Broken software can be fixed cheaply after the fact. Yeah, it’s cheaper if you find the bugs earlier but it shouldn’t come as any surprise that pre-validation is more extensive in systems that are expensive to change.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  There are lots of different types of software. There are phone note apps and control systems for jets and artificial hearts
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  All that falls within the same paradigm, it's just now that now your user requirements have a little flexibility around fault tolerance. You still have SLAs to manage and meet.
cortesoft 5y ago
Whether you are “supposed” to do that or not really depends on what kind of software you are building.

russtrotter 5y ago

Fair point, but the software that eventually ends up in flying space hardware has usually been put to a similar test.

thelittleone 5y ago

Likewise... I was pretty impressed with myself in the 90s as a young guy passing the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer exam. "According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the first recorded 'engineer' was Imhotep. He happened to be the builder of the Step Pyramid at Ṣaqqārah, Egypt." [link] I look forward to drinking ale with Imhotep (and NASA JW Space Telescope engineers) in the great heavenly hall of engineers. https://interestingengineering.com/the-origin-of-the-word-engineering https://interestingengineering.com/the-origin-of-the-word-en...

wumpus 5y ago

One of the best talks I've heard recently was by an early-20s engineer talking about safety-critical software for trains. Yes, it's very different from most software engineering. No need to snicker, just do the appropriate thing for your situation.

boppo1 5y ago
Can you link the talk or post its title?
- wumpus 5y ago
  Sorry, it was at an off-the-record conference. As a result it was a very candid talk!
- rmak 5y ago
  May this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hB_ghSWMoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hB_ghSWMoQ

jacquesm 5y ago

Precisely. Besides aerospace there aren't many industries that know how to do software well.

crgwbr 5y ago
Given Boeing’s recent history, I’m not sure aerospace knows how to do software well either.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  That's a regulatory problem, not a software development problem. Simply put: that plane should have never been certified under that type.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    True. I would even argue that the software and hardware Boeing developed did exactly what it was supposed to do.
CamperBob2 5y ago
In terms of software development and testing practices, what the military/aerospace/medical industries do would never scale to any other industry. If the law were to mandate those practices across the board, that might sound great, but it won't matter because you won't be able to afford the resulting products.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Not necessarily advocating for it, but if that would mean less bloatware, de-facto spy-ware and lousy, pointless apps, or god forbid even les social media apps, I would call that a net positive.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    It would catapult the industry back to the 1990s, at best. How "at best" is interpreted is obviously up to the individual, of course.

eagsalazar2 5y ago

Good god, please stop this misguided snarkiness. Comparing software engineering (or 99.99% of EE, ME, CE, etc) to the web telescope, then haughtily using that comparison as a way to dismiss the entire industry as not really being engineering at all is just ridiculous. I have spent almost 10 years as an EE and another 12 as software engineer and the idea that the level of rigor in EE or ME is any higher than high caliber software teams is just laughable. CI? Detailed process and best practices for review, readability, reusability, testability, security... I won't even go on, most EE teams I've encountered are laughable on all those fronts, all practices that are very common in software engineering. If you think otherwise I highly doubt you have real-world exposure to the processes generally followed by those other disciplines. I do, FYI they are just regular jackasses like all of us :) Also, guess what? The web telescope has a ton of software on it. I suppose that is just "software engineering"? (in quotes, har har) Look, there are terrible teams doing terrible or very simplistic software work. The same is true in all engineering disciplines and it is of course true that in all engineering disciplines (including software) there are also teams operating with a high degree of passion and rigor in creating very complex things. So yeah, please stop with these silly and really pretty insulting comments.

eagsalazar2 5y ago
Also, consider that a half-way complex piece of software (from our outside POV) is enormously more complex than your average IC, vehicle (if you exclude the mountain of software controlling it), or general "engineering" project in other disciplines. Obviously that isn't always true (CPUs, James Web telescope, for example are also enormously complex) but most seemingly simple things you use every day (random example: Grubhub) are massively complicated to build, evolve, and keep running each day. Dismissing them as not real engineering is really ignorant and rude. The ME and EE associated with creating new product like the Nest Thermostat (for example) are, by comparison with something like Grubhub, of trivial engineering complexity (although still very respectable engineering efforts)
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > seemingly simple things you use every day (random example: Grubhub) are massively complicated to build, evolve, and keep running each day What exactly is massively complicated about a predatory aggregator site compared to a vehicle?