3 ms·

I would say truly engineering would be contextualizing these decisions along a spectrum of tradeoffs and positioning your project on that spectrum according to

I would say truly engineering would be contextualizing these decisions along a spectrum of tradeoffs and positioning your project on that spectrum according to the constraints of its creators and users. That may put you to one extreme of the continuum, but that doesn't mean people whose constraints land them elsewhere are not doing "true engineering." "I am going to build the strongest, lightest bridge in the world" is a marvel. "I am going to build a light-enough strong-enough bridge for a cost my client can afford" is engineering.

gavinhoward 3y ago
Sure, if they are considering tradeoffs. But a sign of considering tradeoffs is that every project seems to be just a little different because every circumstance is just a little different. When you have a software monoculture or monocultures, it's likely that tradeoffs are being ignored.
- anjel 3y ago
  The problem is it's trade-offs on top of trade-offs, all the way down.
- Nasrudith 3y ago
  Trade-offs also get a bit meta with "standardization" one way or another. Sure you could get peak performance if you made custom length and width screws but it boosts costs and makes it harder to maintain with the one-offs. Going with trade-offs is itself a tradeoff which means monoculture breeds a pattern of ignoring the tradeoffs.
kayo_20211030 3y ago
Hear! Hear! Engineering is a practical discipline - and it is a discipline. It's building for purpose. I appreciate Tonsky's point, and agree with much of it, but engineering means turning out into the world things that are fit for purpose, however that's defined. Purpose is +100 and all the rest is something of less than 100. Mathematics is mathematics, science is science and engineering is engineering.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  I agree, except that engineering is"fit for purpose at the smallest cost." For me personally, I am banking on having multiple business customers for my software. If I consider the cost amortized, I can spend a little more to engineer something better. But yes, it still has to be fit for purpose. My customers will provide a document that explains what they want to do with my software and on what platforms. If I sign a contract, that means I am committing to supporting their purposes on those platforms.
ethanwillis 3y ago
The ethical considerations and professional obligations that go into creating a bridge aren't exactly translated into the act of creating software. If we mirrored those in a bridge building analogy the "cost my client afford" would mean the engineers would often find themselves greenlighting a bridge that would fail in sensible conditions in our current world.
- kayo_20211030 3y ago
  No. A civil engineer's response would (should?) be immediately that the client cannot build the bridge for that cost, simply because it will kill someone as a first order effect. That's the ethical consideration. The downsides of janky rendering or poor memory management aren't quite the same unless you actually add up the power wastage and apply it as an impact on global warming. But, those are not a first order effect, and although they should be, they don't have the same influence on the solution.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    There's plenty of software that can kill someone as a first-order effect. If you allow second-order, there's even more. Avionics. Air traffic control. Industrial control. Automotive software. 911 dispatch. Medical instruments. Medical information. Military command and control. Mechanical engineering analysis software. Lots of software can kill people.
    - kayo_20211030 3y ago
      That's not what I'm saying. If a web page takes 2s to render rather than a theoretical minimum of "immediately", for most software that most people write, no one will die, or be hurt, or even feel too bad as a first-order effect. Obviously, if one is writing flight control software, or somesuch, then the stakes are higher, and one ought to be aware of that. That's the practicality calculation. If you're going to kill/hurt/really upset someone, then what you're doing is not fit for purpose (unless that is the purpose :) )
    - supriyo-biswas 3y ago

gavinhoward 3y ago

Sure, if they are considering tradeoffs. But a sign of considering tradeoffs is that every project seems to be just a little different because every circumstance is just a little different. When you have a software monoculture or monocultures, it's likely that tradeoffs are being ignored.

anjel 3y ago
The problem is it's trade-offs on top of trade-offs, all the way down.
Nasrudith 3y ago
Trade-offs also get a bit meta with "standardization" one way or another. Sure you could get peak performance if you made custom length and width screws but it boosts costs and makes it harder to maintain with the one-offs. Going with trade-offs is itself a tradeoff which means monoculture breeds a pattern of ignoring the tradeoffs.

kayo_20211030 3y ago

Hear! Hear! Engineering is a practical discipline - and it is a discipline. It's building for purpose. I appreciate Tonsky's point, and agree with much of it, but engineering means turning out into the world things that are fit for purpose, however that's defined. Purpose is +100 and all the rest is something of less than 100. Mathematics is mathematics, science is science and engineering is engineering.

gavinhoward 3y ago
I agree, except that engineering is"fit for purpose at the smallest cost." For me personally, I am banking on having multiple business customers for my software. If I consider the cost amortized, I can spend a little more to engineer something better. But yes, it still has to be fit for purpose. My customers will provide a document that explains what they want to do with my software and on what platforms. If I sign a contract, that means I am committing to supporting their purposes on those platforms.

ethanwillis 3y ago

The ethical considerations and professional obligations that go into creating a bridge aren't exactly translated into the act of creating software. If we mirrored those in a bridge building analogy the "cost my client afford" would mean the engineers would often find themselves greenlighting a bridge that would fail in sensible conditions in our current world.

kayo_20211030 3y ago
No. A civil engineer's response would (should?) be immediately that the client cannot build the bridge for that cost, simply because it will kill someone as a first order effect. That's the ethical consideration. The downsides of janky rendering or poor memory management aren't quite the same unless you actually add up the power wastage and apply it as an impact on global warming. But, those are not a first order effect, and although they should be, they don't have the same influence on the solution.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  There's plenty of software that can kill someone as a first-order effect. If you allow second-order, there's even more. Avionics. Air traffic control. Industrial control. Automotive software. 911 dispatch. Medical instruments. Medical information. Military command and control. Mechanical engineering analysis software. Lots of software can kill people.
  - kayo_20211030 3y ago
    That's not what I'm saying. If a web page takes 2s to render rather than a theoretical minimum of "immediately", for most software that most people write, no one will die, or be hurt, or even feel too bad as a first-order effect. Obviously, if one is writing flight control software, or somesuch, then the stakes are higher, and one ought to be aware of that. That's the practicality calculation. If you're going to kill/hurt/really upset someone, then what you're doing is not fit for purpose (unless that is the purpose :) )
  - supriyo-biswas 3y ago