4 ms·

Our field is getting closer and closer to architecture and medicine now. We've tech like this we can come out of the fiddling age and deep dive into a serious e

Our field is getting closer and closer to architecture and medicine now. We've tech like this we can come out of the fiddling age and deep dive into a serious engineering culture. Quick question: how do you prevent persisting the effect of a DOS attack on those systems?

rewmie 3y ago
> Our field is getting closer and closer to architecture and medicine now. We've tech like this we can come out of the fiddling age and deep dive into a serious engineering culture. This comment reads like ml-generated nonsense. Architecture is summed up as subjective opinions bounded by regulatory constraints, and medicine is still empirical knowledge validated through experiments. None of these fields have even a passing resemblance with engineering.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  That's why I said architecture and medicine and not rocket science. We have a long way to go. However, I think you are very reductive in your descriptions of those fields. Sorry I meant, as a large language model...
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > That's why I said architecture and medicine and not rocket science. You conflated architecture and medicine to a builduo to "serious engineering culture". There is no way around it: it's nonsense. Even though they are highly specialized fields, neither architecture not medicine has anything to do with the basic principles of engineering. It's just nonsensical word soup.
    - someidiot123 3y ago
      [dead]
- ijustlovemath 3y ago
  Medicine has incredibly rigorous engineering processes; if anything I'd say the software world at large has a thing or two to learn from medicine (particularly class II+ devices) about building robust, long lasting software that you know works the way you designed it to See: ISO13485, IEC60601, QMS, etc
  - finnthehuman 3y ago
    I find that it’s more popular to pontificate about what it means for software to engineered to a high standard. That sorta rest on ignoring the fact there are localized fields where we know how to do it. People want to talk hypotheticals rather than go see how we do it. We know how, it’s just slow, expensive and the tooling isn’t some fantasy perfect environment where safety and effectiveness is already built in and developers just do the business logic.
    - tialaramex 3y ago
      Do we know how? When I look at things like ISO 26262 I see an attempt to use poor tools to cobble together something barely adequate with the expenditure of an enormous amount of human labour. The results are nothing to write home about.
  - rewmie 3y ago
    > Medicine has incredibly rigorous engineering processes (...) You're confusing with mechanical engineering applied to medical devices with medicine. It's like claiming bakeries have incredible rigorous engineering processes just because mechanical and industrial engineers design devices and automate processes. Not the same thing, is it? > See: ISO13485, IEC60601, QMS, etc You're just pointing to standards that engineers working on specialized devices need to comply. One covers quality assurance and the other is focused on specialized electrical equipment.
    - ijustlovemath 3y ago
      That's true, those are merely popular examples of how engineering is done in med device, and not specific to the software side, though there are standards and guidance documents for specific fields. I didn't want to get too off in the weeds. But to be a 13485-compliant device developer, you need to have a competent requirements-driven, verified and validated development cycle, release process, and a complete design history with traceability all throughout, so you can immediately link problems to the actual components that caused them. As an analogy, it takes the bill-of-materials approach done by popular package managers and makes it a whole lot more rigorous.
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
  > This comment reads like ml-generated nonsense Not a fan of the new meta
- sitkack 3y ago
  Reductive, rude and not productive.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seanhunter 3y ago
Neither Architecture[1] nor medicine[2] are engineering disciplines, so I don't really see how getting close to them gets us to an engineering culture. [1] Which is a form of art. Go look at a school of architecture at a university it will be in the Art faculty. [2] Which is an applied science like engineering but is not an engineering discipline.

rewmie 3y ago

> Our field is getting closer and closer to architecture and medicine now. We've tech like this we can come out of the fiddling age and deep dive into a serious engineering culture. This comment reads like ml-generated nonsense. Architecture is summed up as subjective opinions bounded by regulatory constraints, and medicine is still empirical knowledge validated through experiments. None of these fields have even a passing resemblance with engineering.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago
That's why I said architecture and medicine and not rocket science. We have a long way to go. However, I think you are very reductive in your descriptions of those fields. Sorry I meant, as a large language model...
- rewmie 3y ago
  > That's why I said architecture and medicine and not rocket science. You conflated architecture and medicine to a builduo to "serious engineering culture". There is no way around it: it's nonsense. Even though they are highly specialized fields, neither architecture not medicine has anything to do with the basic principles of engineering. It's just nonsensical word soup.
  - someidiot123 3y ago
    [dead]
ijustlovemath 3y ago
Medicine has incredibly rigorous engineering processes; if anything I'd say the software world at large has a thing or two to learn from medicine (particularly class II+ devices) about building robust, long lasting software that you know works the way you designed it to See: ISO13485, IEC60601, QMS, etc
- finnthehuman 3y ago
  I find that it’s more popular to pontificate about what it means for software to engineered to a high standard. That sorta rest on ignoring the fact there are localized fields where we know how to do it. People want to talk hypotheticals rather than go see how we do it. We know how, it’s just slow, expensive and the tooling isn’t some fantasy perfect environment where safety and effectiveness is already built in and developers just do the business logic.
  - tialaramex 3y ago
    Do we know how? When I look at things like ISO 26262 I see an attempt to use poor tools to cobble together something barely adequate with the expenditure of an enormous amount of human labour. The results are nothing to write home about.
- rewmie 3y ago
  > Medicine has incredibly rigorous engineering processes (...) You're confusing with mechanical engineering applied to medical devices with medicine. It's like claiming bakeries have incredible rigorous engineering processes just because mechanical and industrial engineers design devices and automate processes. Not the same thing, is it? > See: ISO13485, IEC60601, QMS, etc You're just pointing to standards that engineers working on specialized devices need to comply. One covers quality assurance and the other is focused on specialized electrical equipment.
  - ijustlovemath 3y ago
    That's true, those are merely popular examples of how engineering is done in med device, and not specific to the software side, though there are standards and guidance documents for specific fields. I didn't want to get too off in the weeds. But to be a 13485-compliant device developer, you need to have a competent requirements-driven, verified and validated development cycle, release process, and a complete design history with traceability all throughout, so you can immediately link problems to the actual components that caused them. As an analogy, it takes the bill-of-materials approach done by popular package managers and makes it a whole lot more rigorous.
fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
> This comment reads like ml-generated nonsense Not a fan of the new meta
sitkack 3y ago
Reductive, rude and not productive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

seanhunter 3y ago

Neither Architecture[1] nor medicine[2] are engineering disciplines, so I don't really see how getting close to them gets us to an engineering culture. [1] Which is a form of art. Go look at a school of architecture at a university it will be in the Art faculty. [2] Which is an applied science like engineering but is not an engineering discipline.