4 ms·

This is standard for all Engineering disciplines except software. It’s really not that foreign of a concept.

by cush 5y ago

devwastaken 5y ago
It's also why software can be built far faster and better while other engineering disciplines struggle to build a bridge or plane. The more red tape means only the largest of orgs can operate it because the politics involved guarantee they're the ones that get to make the rules for everyone.
- manigandham 5y ago
  What do you mean by "struggle"? What does "better" mean in this context? Software is intangible and has fewer requirements which obviously helps with speed but the normalized pace of output doesn't seem significantly different. Large and complex software products with equivalent real-world reliability also take a very long time.
- rfrey 5y ago
  You are asserting that software is built far better than bridges and airplanes?
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  The fact that software has far fewer physical limitations than every other field of engineering probably has something to do with the relative speed of its development.
- cush 5y ago
  > only the largest companies could compete That is fundamentally untrue. In fact, regulations would even the playing field. Right now, anyone can get their Engineering degree, complete an apprenticeship, and open a firm. Regulations like Building and electrical codes protect the public, and certified civil and electrical engineers are certifiably competent enough to implement them. Once certified, everyone has the qualifications to bid for the same contracts.
  - devwastaken 5y ago
    >Right now, anyone can get their Engineering degree, complete an apprenticeship, and open a firm. Great, then we should see that. We don't, because that's not true. To "open a firm" with all that red tape requires a great deal of people, namely lawyers and other engineers. That's big money, and it looks bad in comparison to the larger company that, again, gets to set all the rules for you. Certifications are junk. They're a belief system the same as religion. All anyone has to do to be an engineer is get a degree. Do you see how many people have advanced degrees and have nothing but air between their ears? Yeah, I wouldn't trust them to make a popsicle stick bridge. The reason for all the certs, degrees and requirements is control from the largest of corps. They want to set the standard to prevent competition and convince people they are the safe and effective option. You can't compete unless you play their game.
    - cush 5y ago
      > All anyone has to do to be an engineer is get a degree. A PEng needs thousands of hours of work experience then need to write competency exams. Religion? What are you talking about?
bigcat123 5y ago
barry-cotter 5y ago
That something is standard is not an argument that it is good or beneficial. In 1300 it was standard to teach literacy and Latin at the same time and the vernacular was mostly an afterthought. If you want to say that more people programming is bad and they need to be stopped explain why.
Nursie 5y ago
Generally one does not start learning chemical engineering in one's garage with what's to hand. But people can and do start learning on their bedroom computers, and it's to be encouraged. Such self-taught people can make very valuable contributions, especially when they engage with the wider community. Locking them and their output out "because engineering" is likely to be massively counterproductive. Like as not, software is different.
sparky_z 5y ago
It's really not, though (at least in the US). In just about every engineering subdiscipline except Civil/Structural, you can rise arbitrarily high in your career with no formal licensure or certification beyond a university degree and work experience. Official licensure schemes do technically exist for other subdisciplines, such as Mechanical, but I'm really not sure why. I've never met anybody who bothered to get one.
erosenbe0 5y ago
Not standard at all. 10-20% of American engineers have a license.
eikenberry 5y ago
Software is not an engineering discipline. Doesn't matter that they don't know what to call us, we aren't engineers. More closely related to poets or painters in my book.
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  And sometimes, more akin to bureaucrats or plumbers.
renewiltord 5y ago
And behold! They have killed thousands! Perhaps hundreds of thousands! And what have we done? Killed 12 in a Therac-25? They should try being like us!
- Apocryphon 5y ago
  That's a... very selective reading of history. The Boeing 737 MAX crashes, for starters, are of far more recent memory.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    The Boeing 737 MAX crashes were caused by faulty AoA sensors. A rather classic measure by these so-called "professional" engineers: make a broken device and then pass the buck. Does their certification process teach this? In any case, happy to split the difference and call it even. Okay, how about you build a list of software that directly killed people and I'll build a list of non-software that directly killed people in 2021. Then whoever finds more people killed gets $10k from the other? We can agree to terms of what it means for software to kill and non-software to kill. Therac-25 is obvious software, Florida condo collapse is obviously hardware.
    - Apocryphon 5y ago
      The fact that non-software has the capacity to end more lives than software is inherent in one being less plugged into the real-world? Perhaps I should wire you $10k straightaway out of the gratitude that we do not exist in the world where Stanislav Petrov dutifully followed the erroneous computer readings from Soviet early detection systems, sparking global thermonuclear war. Would that be a sufficient kill count to your liking? Besides, few pieces of non-engineering is responsible for massive data breaches that lead to massive indirect consequences, such as Equifax. Perhaps your obsession with death overlooks other consequences of poor software engineering like financial ones, such as Black Monday, 1987. Perhaps bad software kills fewer people because less software engineering is involved with real-world systems- though requiescat in pace to those lost to Tesla Autopilot accidents, or the unfortunate biker in Arizona struck by a self-driving Uber. I am transparently moving the goalposts here because your presumption that fatalities are the only consequence of shoddy software engineering was fallacious to begin with. Pray I do not move them any further.

This is standard for all Engineering disciplines except software. It’s really not that foreign of a concept.

by cush 5y ago

This is standard for all Engineering disciplines except software. It’s really not that foreign of a concept.

It's also why software can be built far faster and better while other engineering disciplines struggle to build a bridge or plane. The more red tape means only the largest of orgs can operate it because the politics involved guarantee they're the ones that get to make the rules for everyone.

manigandham 5y ago
What do you mean by "struggle"? What does "better" mean in this context? Software is intangible and has fewer requirements which obviously helps with speed but the normalized pace of output doesn't seem significantly different. Large and complex software products with equivalent real-world reliability also take a very long time.
rfrey 5y ago
You are asserting that software is built far better than bridges and airplanes?
Apocryphon 5y ago
The fact that software has far fewer physical limitations than every other field of engineering probably has something to do with the relative speed of its development.
cush 5y ago
> only the largest companies could compete That is fundamentally untrue. In fact, regulations would even the playing field. Right now, anyone can get their Engineering degree, complete an apprenticeship, and open a firm. Regulations like Building and electrical codes protect the public, and certified civil and electrical engineers are certifiably competent enough to implement them. Once certified, everyone has the qualifications to bid for the same contracts.
- devwastaken 5y ago
  >Right now, anyone can get their Engineering degree, complete an apprenticeship, and open a firm. Great, then we should see that. We don't, because that's not true. To "open a firm" with all that red tape requires a great deal of people, namely lawyers and other engineers. That's big money, and it looks bad in comparison to the larger company that, again, gets to set all the rules for you. Certifications are junk. They're a belief system the same as religion. All anyone has to do to be an engineer is get a degree. Do you see how many people have advanced degrees and have nothing but air between their ears? Yeah, I wouldn't trust them to make a popsicle stick bridge. The reason for all the certs, degrees and requirements is control from the largest of corps. They want to set the standard to prevent competition and convince people they are the safe and effective option. You can't compete unless you play their game.
  - cush 5y ago
    > All anyone has to do to be an engineer is get a degree. A PEng needs thousands of hours of work experience then need to write competency exams. Religion? What are you talking about?

bigcat123 5y ago

barry-cotter 5y ago

That something is standard is not an argument that it is good or beneficial. In 1300 it was standard to teach literacy and Latin at the same time and the vernacular was mostly an afterthought. If you want to say that more people programming is bad and they need to be stopped explain why.

Nursie 5y ago

Generally one does not start learning chemical engineering in one's garage with what's to hand. But people can and do start learning on their bedroom computers, and it's to be encouraged. Such self-taught people can make very valuable contributions, especially when they engage with the wider community. Locking them and their output out "because engineering" is likely to be massively counterproductive. Like as not, software is different.

sparky_z 5y ago

It's really not, though (at least in the US). In just about every engineering subdiscipline except Civil/Structural, you can rise arbitrarily high in your career with no formal licensure or certification beyond a university degree and work experience. Official licensure schemes do technically exist for other subdisciplines, such as Mechanical, but I'm really not sure why. I've never met anybody who bothered to get one.

erosenbe0 5y ago

Not standard at all. 10-20% of American engineers have a license.

eikenberry 5y ago

Software is not an engineering discipline. Doesn't matter that they don't know what to call us, we aren't engineers. More closely related to poets or painters in my book.

Apocryphon 5y ago
And sometimes, more akin to bureaucrats or plumbers.

renewiltord 5y ago

And behold! They have killed thousands! Perhaps hundreds of thousands! And what have we done? Killed 12 in a Therac-25? They should try being like us!

Apocryphon 5y ago
That's a... very selective reading of history. The Boeing 737 MAX crashes, for starters, are of far more recent memory.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  The Boeing 737 MAX crashes were caused by faulty AoA sensors. A rather classic measure by these so-called "professional" engineers: make a broken device and then pass the buck. Does their certification process teach this? In any case, happy to split the difference and call it even. Okay, how about you build a list of software that directly killed people and I'll build a list of non-software that directly killed people in 2021. Then whoever finds more people killed gets $10k from the other? We can agree to terms of what it means for software to kill and non-software to kill. Therac-25 is obvious software, Florida condo collapse is obviously hardware.
  - Apocryphon 5y ago
    The fact that non-software has the capacity to end more lives than software is inherent in one being less plugged into the real-world? Perhaps I should wire you $10k straightaway out of the gratitude that we do not exist in the world where Stanislav Petrov dutifully followed the erroneous computer readings from Soviet early detection systems, sparking global thermonuclear war. Would that be a sufficient kill count to your liking? Besides, few pieces of non-engineering is responsible for massive data breaches that lead to massive indirect consequences, such as Equifax. Perhaps your obsession with death overlooks other consequences of poor software engineering like financial ones, such as Black Monday, 1987. Perhaps bad software kills fewer people because less software engineering is involved with real-world systems- though requiescat in pace to those lost to Tesla Autopilot accidents, or the unfortunate biker in Arizona struck by a self-driving Uber. I am transparently moving the goalposts here because your presumption that fatalities are the only consequence of shoddy software engineering was fallacious to begin with. Pray I do not move them any further.