4 ms·

You are trying to directly compare software with traditional engineering which doesn't really make sense. Traditional engineering has a lot of constraints which

You are trying to directly compare software with traditional engineering which doesn't really make sense. Traditional engineering has a lot of constraints which software doesn't. > Only software has this culture of releasing something than issuing patches later This has nothing to do with the rigour of software engineering. The process for releasing the initial software can be very rigorous, with a conscious decision to follow up with a patch or second release. The nature of software allows this behaviour, whereas traditional engineering doesn't. The fact you can't release a day 1 patch for a building doesn't mean that the process for designing and creating a building is more rigorous. > Flexibility is an indicator of easiness How so? Flexibility means more ways to shoot yourself in the foot. It means you can easily implement something that works for now, and fucks you over later on. It's harder to do that with a physical construction because there are a lot of constraints. Physical construction has physics as guardrails, whereas software has unbounded complexity. > Are either of these industries over loaded with a barrage of random ass startups or is software the only industry with this stuff? How is this indicative of rigour? Yes, software has a lower barrier to entry. That doesn't mean that software engineering in general has less rigour. A lot of software is written haphazardly without process, but I wouldn't classify that as software engineering because there is no engineering process there.

deltaonefour 5y ago
I'm just comparing the hardness. Software engineering is easier is my argument. The patchy nature of software makes it easier. >How so? Flexibility means more ways to shoot yourself in the foot True but people do so anyway. People in software repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot all the time than shrug it off. Oh it's just a bug. Hence the easiness. >How is this indicative of rigour? Yes, software has a lower barrier to entry. Rigour is another argument, though software definitely has less rigour. But my point is software engineering is easier. Doesn't low barrier to entry mean it's easier? It's like literally a synonym. >A lot of software is written haphazardly without process, but I wouldn't classify that as software engineering because there is no engineering process there. That's why it's easier. The "software process" is not really required. It's like an optional thing. Plenty of software shops prioritize speed over planning.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  It sounds like your argument is that writing ANY software is easier than traditional engineering, which I would agree with but I think it's a poor comparison. Most software shops aren't practising engineering, so to compare them to traditional engineering seems odd.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    Software engineering is poorly defined. You say most shops aren't practicing engineering yet every software guy who works at these shops has the title "Software Engineer." Let's dispense with the linguistic technicalities. Software, whether you want to attach the word engineering at the end of it or not is easier than other forms of engineering.
    - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
      I agree software engineering is poorly defined, but I don't think it's just "linguistic technicalities". There is an enormous difference in the work between shops that hack code together and those that have well defined processes. The former is nothing close to engineering whereas the latter is very much engineering. Also on the title thing, I think they're basically meaningless everywhere. Engineering grads will also call themselves engineers regardless of the kind of work they do.
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        The titles are as meaningless as the process itself. I understand what you're getting at. Everyone understands. I'm saying these processes are pointless. They're are made up. An arbitrary set of methodologies or plans to execute certain things made up by mostly project managers. It's like company bylaws or procedures for scheduling an event. Engineering processes are usually designed around some form of mathematical model or statistical phenomenon. This is not the case for software. Software processes aka Software engineering is just a made up set of arbitrary planning procedures. Shit like kanban or poker planning comes to mind.

deltaonefour 5y ago

I'm just comparing the hardness. Software engineering is easier is my argument. The patchy nature of software makes it easier. >How so? Flexibility means more ways to shoot yourself in the foot True but people do so anyway. People in software repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot all the time than shrug it off. Oh it's just a bug. Hence the easiness. >How is this indicative of rigour? Yes, software has a lower barrier to entry. Rigour is another argument, though software definitely has less rigour. But my point is software engineering is easier. Doesn't low barrier to entry mean it's easier? It's like literally a synonym. >A lot of software is written haphazardly without process, but I wouldn't classify that as software engineering because there is no engineering process there. That's why it's easier. The "software process" is not really required. It's like an optional thing. Plenty of software shops prioritize speed over planning.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago
It sounds like your argument is that writing ANY software is easier than traditional engineering, which I would agree with but I think it's a poor comparison. Most software shops aren't practising engineering, so to compare them to traditional engineering seems odd.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  Software engineering is poorly defined. You say most shops aren't practicing engineering yet every software guy who works at these shops has the title "Software Engineer." Let's dispense with the linguistic technicalities. Software, whether you want to attach the word engineering at the end of it or not is easier than other forms of engineering.
  - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
    I agree software engineering is poorly defined, but I don't think it's just "linguistic technicalities". There is an enormous difference in the work between shops that hack code together and those that have well defined processes. The former is nothing close to engineering whereas the latter is very much engineering. Also on the title thing, I think they're basically meaningless everywhere. Engineering grads will also call themselves engineers regardless of the kind of work they do.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      The titles are as meaningless as the process itself. I understand what you're getting at. Everyone understands. I'm saying these processes are pointless. They're are made up. An arbitrary set of methodologies or plans to execute certain things made up by mostly project managers. It's like company bylaws or procedures for scheduling an event. Engineering processes are usually designed around some form of mathematical model or statistical phenomenon. This is not the case for software. Software processes aka Software engineering is just a made up set of arbitrary planning procedures. Shit like kanban or poker planning comes to mind.