6 ms·

> Is there any path for software engineers to reach this level of accountability and norms of good practice? There is no reason that software couldn't be treat

> Is there any path for software engineers to reach this level of accountability and norms of good practice? There is no reason that software couldn't be treated with the same care and respect. The only reason we don't is because the industry resists that sort of change. They want to move fast and break things while still calling themselves "engineers." Almost none of this resembles engineering.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
> Software engineering, of course, presents itself as another worthy cause, but that is eyewash: if you carefully read its literature and analyse what its devotees actually do, you will discover that software engineering has accepted as its charter "How to program if you cannot.". — Edsger Wybe Dijkstra, 1988. (EWD1036)
- jfengel 2y ago
  I'm ok with that. I don't want to keep everyone out except just those who happen to have just the right mind set. Programming is about developing software for people, and the more viewpoints are in the room, the better. Some pieces are more important than others. Those are the bits that need to be carefully regulated, as if they were bridges. But not everything we build has lives on the line. If that means we don't get to call ourselves "engineers", I'm good with that. We work with bits, not atoms, and we can develop our own new way of handling that.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    I prefer to call it "computer programming." If the title is good enough for Ken Thompson or Don Knuth then it's good enough for me.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    > I don't want to keep everyone out except just those who happen to have just the right mind set. Neither do I. Neither did Dijkstra. EWD1036, “On the cruelty of really teaching computing science”, is about education reform, to enable those who don't "happen to have just the right mind set" to fully participate in actual, effective programming.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > If that means we don't get to call ourselves "engineers", I'm good with that. I suspect this particular title-exaggeration is fueling this particular fire. Going forward, I believe we need to be aware that software controlled mechanics grew out of two disparate disciplines; it presently lacks the holistic thinking that long-integrated industries do.
figassis 2y ago
I’m a software engineer, with a degree, and SWE does have the same ethical principles and the same engineering process, from problem definition and requirements a the way to development lifecycle, testing, deployment indigent management, etc. none of it includes sprints and story points. Suffice it to say most SWEs are not being hired to do actual engineering, bc the industry can’t get over the fact that just because you can update and release SW instantly doesn’t mean you should.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > SWE does have the same ethical principles and the same engineering process The lack of certification means this training isn’t reinforced to the degree it is in engineering.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    Right. If the coding industry mimics the construction industry, we wind up with one position called engineer that assumes most of the liability. The other 99.99....% of software engineers will get different titles. All of this ignores the individuals who are most responsible for these catastrophes. Investors and executives deliver relentless and effective pressure toward practices that maximize their profits - at the expense of all else. They purposefully create + nurture a single point of failure and are massively rewarded for the harm that causes (while the consequences are suffered by everyone else). Thanks to the pass they reliably get, we get their leadership design degrading every industry it can.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If the coding industry mimics the construction industry, we wind up with one position called engineer that assumes most of the liability If their sign off is required, this could work. The question is whether it’s worth it, and if it is, in which contexts.
      - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
throwaheyy 2y ago
To be fair, software and technology is so magically transformative that even with warranty disclaimers like “this software comes with no warranty, and we limit our liability to the purchase price”, every company in the world still lines up to buy it. Because for them it’s effectively magic, that they cannot replicate themselves. No individual software developer, nor corporation, is foolish enough to claim their software is free of bugs, that’s why they put the risk on the customer and the customer still signs on the dotted line and accepts the risks anyway. After all, it’s still way more profitable to have the potentially-faulty software than needing an army of clerks with pen and paper instead. Most software has to be this way or it would be exorbitantly expensive. That’s the bargain between software developers and the companies that buy the software. Customer accepts the risks and gets to pocket the large profits that the software brings (because of the software’s low cost), because it’s better than the software developer balking at the liability, no software being written at all, and having an army of staff every airport writing out boarding passes by hand. There are only a few softwares that aren’t this way - example the software in aircraft or nuclear power plants. That software is correspondingly extremely expensive. Most customers that can, choose to accept the risks so they can have the larger profits.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

> Software engineering, of course, presents itself as another worthy cause, but that is eyewash: if you carefully read its literature and analyse what its devotees actually do, you will discover that software engineering has accepted as its charter "How to program if you cannot.". — Edsger Wybe Dijkstra, 1988. (EWD1036)

jfengel 2y ago
I'm ok with that. I don't want to keep everyone out except just those who happen to have just the right mind set. Programming is about developing software for people, and the more viewpoints are in the room, the better. Some pieces are more important than others. Those are the bits that need to be carefully regulated, as if they were bridges. But not everything we build has lives on the line. If that means we don't get to call ourselves "engineers", I'm good with that. We work with bits, not atoms, and we can develop our own new way of handling that.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  I prefer to call it "computer programming." If the title is good enough for Ken Thompson or Don Knuth then it's good enough for me.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  > I don't want to keep everyone out except just those who happen to have just the right mind set. Neither do I. Neither did Dijkstra. EWD1036, “On the cruelty of really teaching computing science”, is about education reform, to enable those who don't "happen to have just the right mind set" to fully participate in actual, effective programming.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > If that means we don't get to call ourselves "engineers", I'm good with that. I suspect this particular title-exaggeration is fueling this particular fire. Going forward, I believe we need to be aware that software controlled mechanics grew out of two disparate disciplines; it presently lacks the holistic thinking that long-integrated industries do.

figassis 2y ago

I’m a software engineer, with a degree, and SWE does have the same ethical principles and the same engineering process, from problem definition and requirements a the way to development lifecycle, testing, deployment indigent management, etc. none of it includes sprints and story points. Suffice it to say most SWEs are not being hired to do actual engineering, bc the industry can’t get over the fact that just because you can update and release SW instantly doesn’t mean you should.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> SWE does have the same ethical principles and the same engineering process The lack of certification means this training isn’t reinforced to the degree it is in engineering.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  Right. If the coding industry mimics the construction industry, we wind up with one position called engineer that assumes most of the liability. The other 99.99....% of software engineers will get different titles. All of this ignores the individuals who are most responsible for these catastrophes. Investors and executives deliver relentless and effective pressure toward practices that maximize their profits - at the expense of all else. They purposefully create + nurture a single point of failure and are massively rewarded for the harm that causes (while the consequences are suffered by everyone else). Thanks to the pass they reliably get, we get their leadership design degrading every industry it can.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If the coding industry mimics the construction industry, we wind up with one position called engineer that assumes most of the liability If their sign off is required, this could work. The question is whether it’s worth it, and if it is, in which contexts.
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

throwaheyy 2y ago

To be fair, software and technology is so magically transformative that even with warranty disclaimers like “this software comes with no warranty, and we limit our liability to the purchase price”, every company in the world still lines up to buy it. Because for them it’s effectively magic, that they cannot replicate themselves. No individual software developer, nor corporation, is foolish enough to claim their software is free of bugs, that’s why they put the risk on the customer and the customer still signs on the dotted line and accepts the risks anyway. After all, it’s still way more profitable to have the potentially-faulty software than needing an army of clerks with pen and paper instead. Most software has to be this way or it would be exorbitantly expensive. That’s the bargain between software developers and the companies that buy the software. Customer accepts the risks and gets to pocket the large profits that the software brings (because of the software’s low cost), because it’s better than the software developer balking at the liability, no software being written at all, and having an army of staff every airport writing out boarding passes by hand. There are only a few softwares that aren’t this way - example the software in aircraft or nuclear power plants. That software is correspondingly extremely expensive. Most customers that can, choose to accept the risks so they can have the larger profits.