5 ms·

Been doing this for 30+ years. "Craft" is an ok way to put it. It definitely isn't the "easiest" engineering disciplines - all engineering is difficult otherwis

Been doing this for 30+ years. "Craft" is an ok way to put it. It definitely isn't the "easiest" engineering disciplines - all engineering is difficult otherwise we wouldn't call it engineering. If you think it is easy, you haven't done anything worthwhile, sorry. To bad engineers, I can see how it looks easy and that it is "moving in circles". It is still a relatively new discipline, and as such, still finding a lot of the process, tools, and techniques that other disciplines have developed. Plus Moore's Law and its ilk change things constantly.

deltaonefour 5y ago
>If you think it is easy, you haven't done anything worthwhile, sorry. LOL this is an insult. Let me put it this way, you're right but I can bet you haven't done anything worthwhile either. Anything you've built as a software engineer, I can 100% build as well. There is nothing you can do that I can't as a pure software engineer. In fact likely everyone on this thread can build anything you've built and likely do better as well. But let me be clear. If you programmed CAD software that can simulate an entire boeing 747 flying through the air... that is a feat that not many software engineers can do. But this doesn't count because it's combining two engineering disciplines (even a PRB renderer doesn't count. Something like an OS would be an example of a pure software engineering approach. Also I never said software is easy. I said it's the "easiest." Big difference. IN ALL of engineering it's highly unlikely for all engineering disciplines to be equally hard. highly highly unlikely. All engineering disciplines must overall stand at some general point in the challenge spectrum. You could say the answer is too complicated to answer as there are jobs in say chemical engineering that are much harder than certain jobs in mechanical engineering and vice versa but regardless a GENERALITY of hardness exists. What engineering discipline in your mind is than the easiest if not software engineering? Tell me. What other engineering discipline to practitioners don't require any schooling are hired without a degrees and you can easily form a start up around with less effort? Why don't we see a bunch of spaceX startups but see a ton of startups building some stupid dashboard for a niche? I'll give you a hint. Because when you compare rocket science versus computer science, one of these fields is GENERALLY easier. > I can see how it looks easy and that it is "moving in circles". It is still a relatively new discipline, and as such, still finding a lot of the process, tools, and techniques that other disciplines have developed. Plus Moore's Law and its ilk change things constantly. How it looks? I've been in this industry for years. I can assure you it's not a "look" thing. It's a TRUE thing. The industry does move in circles. There's no mathematical theory on how to organize code so we make shit up and call them "patterns" but there's ultimately no actual proof that one pattern is better than another and we're not 100% clear about the tradeoffs diving in. That's why the industry moves in circles. It oscillates between two solutions and it can't figure out which is better. For what use case is a monolith better or a microservice? What software design pattern is actually better for what use case? Can you plug it into an formal equation and optimize the best design pattern to use for a certain case? You can't... because no theory exists. But no theory needs to exist. You can hack a half assed solution and that's really all that's needed. Even if you don't "hack" a solution together nobody can really prove whether your "designed" solution is better. A stupid engineer can design something and think he's a genius but without theory nobody can prove whether his design is the best one possible. And that is why software is easy. Anything goes. It's like building 1/32 scale model of the eiffel tower out of toothpicks. Is there a theory behind it? No. Is it easy to do? No. Can anybody do it? Given enough time, Yes.
- tralarpa 5y ago
  > But no theory needs to exist. You can hack a half assed solution and that's really all that's needed I don't understand your reasoning. You say that it's possible to "hack a half assed solution" that somehow works and from that you conclude that software is easy (or the easiest, doesn't matter)? Aren't you contracting yourself? If software is easy why do you produce a half-assed solution? If it's so easy why isn't your solution of high quality like the 747? Maybe it's not so easy to write cheap, bug free, portable, maintainable, compatible, little-resource-consuming, high-performing software? I can also build a half-assed airplane. It will crash often, not do what I wanted, and I will use a lot of off-the-shelf components (engine,...), just like modern software... That must mean building airplanes is easy, right? Edit: It would be more correct to say it like this: Creating software is hard and poorly understood at the moment. Even worse, people writing software are not trained well. But since the expectations of our customers are low (compared to the expectations we have to, for example, an airplane), the market tolerates this. Edit 2: By the way, I agree with most of what you have written about the industry moving in circles, half-assed solutions, using patterns and frameworks without any deeper understanding. But that's actually proving that software engineering IS hard. (or maybe it's easy but nobody cares)
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    >Aren't you contracting yourself? If software is easy why do you produce a half-assed solution? That's why it's easy. Finding a formal theory for software organization is hard so it hasn't been done yet. We make do with design patterns and many of those patterns are outright mistakes. As it stands without "Computer scientists" establishing a formal theory on this... Software engineering is a shot in the dark and therefore easy. >I can also build a half-assed airplane. It will crash often, not do what I wanted, An airplane can only crash once. And when it crashes, people die. That's why no airplane is ever half-assed. Building an airplane is hard because of these requirements. Building software is easy because the requirements ALLOW for it to be half assed. Does my OS crash once a day? Still somewhat useable... Does my plane crash once a day? Holy shit. >Edit: It would be more correct to say it like this: Creating software is hard and poorly understood at the moment. Even worse, people writing software are not trained well. But since the expectations of our customers are low (compared to the expectations we have to, for example, an airplane), the market tolerates this. Hence why Software engineering is one of the easiest engineering disciplines out there. >Edit 2: By the way, I agree with most of what you have written about the industry moving in circles, half-assed solutions, using patterns and frameworks without any deeper understanding. But that's actually proving that software engineering IS hard. (or maybe it's easy but nobody cares) I would argue that this is more, computer science is hard rather than software engineering. The development of new techniques and greater understanding is the domain of science and academia. Engineering is about solving existing problems with existing techniques. Software engineering as it stands is easy.

deltaonefour 5y ago

>If you think it is easy, you haven't done anything worthwhile, sorry. LOL this is an insult. Let me put it this way, you're right but I can bet you haven't done anything worthwhile either. Anything you've built as a software engineer, I can 100% build as well. There is nothing you can do that I can't as a pure software engineer. In fact likely everyone on this thread can build anything you've built and likely do better as well. But let me be clear. If you programmed CAD software that can simulate an entire boeing 747 flying through the air... that is a feat that not many software engineers can do. But this doesn't count because it's combining two engineering disciplines (even a PRB renderer doesn't count. Something like an OS would be an example of a pure software engineering approach. Also I never said software is easy. I said it's the "easiest." Big difference. IN ALL of engineering it's highly unlikely for all engineering disciplines to be equally hard. highly highly unlikely. All engineering disciplines must overall stand at some general point in the challenge spectrum. You could say the answer is too complicated to answer as there are jobs in say chemical engineering that are much harder than certain jobs in mechanical engineering and vice versa but regardless a GENERALITY of hardness exists. What engineering discipline in your mind is than the easiest if not software engineering? Tell me. What other engineering discipline to practitioners don't require any schooling are hired without a degrees and you can easily form a start up around with less effort? Why don't we see a bunch of spaceX startups but see a ton of startups building some stupid dashboard for a niche? I'll give you a hint. Because when you compare rocket science versus computer science, one of these fields is GENERALLY easier. > I can see how it looks easy and that it is "moving in circles". It is still a relatively new discipline, and as such, still finding a lot of the process, tools, and techniques that other disciplines have developed. Plus Moore's Law and its ilk change things constantly. How it looks? I've been in this industry for years. I can assure you it's not a "look" thing. It's a TRUE thing. The industry does move in circles. There's no mathematical theory on how to organize code so we make shit up and call them "patterns" but there's ultimately no actual proof that one pattern is better than another and we're not 100% clear about the tradeoffs diving in. That's why the industry moves in circles. It oscillates between two solutions and it can't figure out which is better. For what use case is a monolith better or a microservice? What software design pattern is actually better for what use case? Can you plug it into an formal equation and optimize the best design pattern to use for a certain case? You can't... because no theory exists. But no theory needs to exist. You can hack a half assed solution and that's really all that's needed. Even if you don't "hack" a solution together nobody can really prove whether your "designed" solution is better. A stupid engineer can design something and think he's a genius but without theory nobody can prove whether his design is the best one possible. And that is why software is easy. Anything goes. It's like building 1/32 scale model of the eiffel tower out of toothpicks. Is there a theory behind it? No. Is it easy to do? No. Can anybody do it? Given enough time, Yes.

tralarpa 5y ago
> But no theory needs to exist. You can hack a half assed solution and that's really all that's needed I don't understand your reasoning. You say that it's possible to "hack a half assed solution" that somehow works and from that you conclude that software is easy (or the easiest, doesn't matter)? Aren't you contracting yourself? If software is easy why do you produce a half-assed solution? If it's so easy why isn't your solution of high quality like the 747? Maybe it's not so easy to write cheap, bug free, portable, maintainable, compatible, little-resource-consuming, high-performing software? I can also build a half-assed airplane. It will crash often, not do what I wanted, and I will use a lot of off-the-shelf components (engine,...), just like modern software... That must mean building airplanes is easy, right? Edit: It would be more correct to say it like this: Creating software is hard and poorly understood at the moment. Even worse, people writing software are not trained well. But since the expectations of our customers are low (compared to the expectations we have to, for example, an airplane), the market tolerates this. Edit 2: By the way, I agree with most of what you have written about the industry moving in circles, half-assed solutions, using patterns and frameworks without any deeper understanding. But that's actually proving that software engineering IS hard. (or maybe it's easy but nobody cares)
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  >Aren't you contracting yourself? If software is easy why do you produce a half-assed solution? That's why it's easy. Finding a formal theory for software organization is hard so it hasn't been done yet. We make do with design patterns and many of those patterns are outright mistakes. As it stands without "Computer scientists" establishing a formal theory on this... Software engineering is a shot in the dark and therefore easy. >I can also build a half-assed airplane. It will crash often, not do what I wanted, An airplane can only crash once. And when it crashes, people die. That's why no airplane is ever half-assed. Building an airplane is hard because of these requirements. Building software is easy because the requirements ALLOW for it to be half assed. Does my OS crash once a day? Still somewhat useable... Does my plane crash once a day? Holy shit. >Edit: It would be more correct to say it like this: Creating software is hard and poorly understood at the moment. Even worse, people writing software are not trained well. But since the expectations of our customers are low (compared to the expectations we have to, for example, an airplane), the market tolerates this. Hence why Software engineering is one of the easiest engineering disciplines out there. >Edit 2: By the way, I agree with most of what you have written about the industry moving in circles, half-assed solutions, using patterns and frameworks without any deeper understanding. But that's actually proving that software engineering IS hard. (or maybe it's easy but nobody cares) I would argue that this is more, computer science is hard rather than software engineering. The development of new techniques and greater understanding is the domain of science and academia. Engineering is about solving existing problems with existing techniques. Software engineering as it stands is easy.