> I understand the appeal. We’re engineers. We like building things. System dynamics lets you construct an argument by building a model. Provocative title aside

> I understand the appeal. We’re engineers. We like building things. System dynamics lets you construct an argument by building a model. Provocative title aside, I do appreciate this style of argument. Some very thoughtful writing is done this way. It is explicit and engaging; it can even be visual or interactive. No. You're not engineers, you are software developers. While both may require a certain amount of skill and expertise, you're throwing around titles casually where it doesn't make sense. In most cases, engineers deal with the physical world and the laws around it, and the product in terms of an engineering solution is normally physical/materiel. Software development particularly when it does not include a physical component is intrinsically different because the fabrication aspect of the physical world applies a great deal less. For example, if you are at a critical design review of a jet engine, the refabrication and fixes of components may require huge amounts of time. In software development the output is code, and although person hours and work is involved in modifying/changing it, it has inherent plasticity. This is why more iterative methodologies make a great deal more sense in software than do engineering oriented development processes.