5 ms·

> To me, this sounds partially like an anachronistic appeal to big data, an unsurprising marketing spin for an industry still far behind the bleeding edge of so

> To me, this sounds partially like an anachronistic appeal to big data, an unsurprising marketing spin for an industry still far behind the bleeding edge of software engineering. Let's leave the politics aside for a moment, but is there any benefit to even be on the "bleeding edge of software engineering"? I would assume these engineers are measured by reliability of their product instead of a techstack that looks good on a resumee?

gostsamo 2y ago
When the edge is less bugs in code bases which have much less contributers and which might need fast iteration due to adverserial environment, the ability to deploy with confidence might be a real advantage.
klooney 2y ago
I mean, I feel like we've made a lot of progress on "how to do a good job" that's valuable- we've learned a lot about the value of automated tests, how to write fast ones, how to manage changes, how to design languages and systems that prevent errors. You go look at older companies shipping product.zip.3 files around from someone's desktop and then it all comes in to focus.
DyslexicAtheist 2y ago
attracting capable engineers building a reliable product would require that the employer ensures they get to work with an interesting & modern tech stack (e.g. regardless what one thinks of Rust or Nix). Whether Rust is mandatory to create defense Tech, that decision might have been influenced by many factors that apply also to any other start-up (time to market, access to talent, maturity of the ecosystem, skill distribution in founding team, etc)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ytpete 2y ago
  I wouldn't say it requires that though. That is one way to attract solid engineers, but you can also do it with better pay, better benefits, better work-life balance, or sometimes even by just having a really compelling mission or project that people feel excited to work on.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    For Europe, in 2024, working on defence is indeed such a compelling mission for many engineers. I suspect that’s an aspect of the situation a lot of Americans aren’t realising.
    - trallnag 2y ago
      Defence includes border protection and illegal immigration. Problems that both unions face
tialaramex 2y ago
Suppose that you're a bridge engineer. Ten years ago, when you learned your craft it was usual to build larger, sturdy, bridges from cast iron, however recently (say five years ago) high quality bulk steel I-beams became available at a very affordable price. The bleeding edge of your discipline is use of these I-beams, they enable you to build a comparatively elegant bridge which is far stronger and yet is less easily damaged by the elements than the iron bridges. A "traditional" bridge engineer can point to examples of their preferred materials which have lasted fifty, a hundred years, and say look - we know cast iron works. You don't have that, and so there may be people who say "I don't want your new steel bridge", but on the other hand, clients may be swayed by the affordable yet better looking and more capable product. In fifty years it's no contest, your steel bridges make sense, iron bridges made by your competitors are seen as old-fashioned and unnecessarily conservative. "Didn't they have steel?" "They didn't trust it". "Huh". Now, of course it's not always so clear whether whatever you consider "Bleeding edge" is use of steel beams in bridges, or use of flammable aluminium cassette "weather cladding" on high rise buildings (a choice now seen as unacceptably dangerous). But just because it's how things were done by your grandfather doesn't mean it's a good choice today.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  A more like comparison with tech is more that there are now steel ibeams but no one at all knows how to design a bridge with an ibeam to maximize its benefit. You get certain alpha build bridges that will be totally unsafe despite using the new technology of the new material. The designs haven’t had a chance to hit their bugs and be iterated out and new bugs are expected to emerge very often. In your example your bridge builder presumably has a mature and stable software build equivalent of a steel ibeam bridge design that is basically going to be the same going forward. That’s more like when people still use cobol for decades because it works than when people are testing out the bleeding edge of software.
- 3eb7988a1663 2y ago
  Physical infrastructure has expected lifetimes measured in years/decades. The half-life for a line of code could be as little as a year. I think being conservative in adopting new technology for something concrete is a sensible choice.
flumpcakes 2y ago
"bleeding edge" may also be unproven and more importantly it is not standardised. This is why people would muse that they trust a civil engineer over a software engineer - sectors that include physical engineering have rigorous standards. Software projects that interface with this (say, a flight computer of a new jet) also have strict standards. Ones that do not (currently) cover the "bleeding edge" in software development.

gostsamo 2y ago

When the edge is less bugs in code bases which have much less contributers and which might need fast iteration due to adverserial environment, the ability to deploy with confidence might be a real advantage.

klooney 2y ago

I mean, I feel like we've made a lot of progress on "how to do a good job" that's valuable- we've learned a lot about the value of automated tests, how to write fast ones, how to manage changes, how to design languages and systems that prevent errors. You go look at older companies shipping product.zip.3 files around from someone's desktop and then it all comes in to focus.

DyslexicAtheist 2y ago

attracting capable engineers building a reliable product would require that the employer ensures they get to work with an interesting & modern tech stack (e.g. regardless what one thinks of Rust or Nix). Whether Rust is mandatory to create defense Tech, that decision might have been influenced by many factors that apply also to any other start-up (time to market, access to talent, maturity of the ecosystem, skill distribution in founding team, etc)

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ytpete 2y ago
I wouldn't say it requires that though. That is one way to attract solid engineers, but you can also do it with better pay, better benefits, better work-life balance, or sometimes even by just having a really compelling mission or project that people feel excited to work on.
- Filligree 2y ago
  For Europe, in 2024, working on defence is indeed such a compelling mission for many engineers. I suspect that’s an aspect of the situation a lot of Americans aren’t realising.
  - trallnag 2y ago
    Defence includes border protection and illegal immigration. Problems that both unions face

tialaramex 2y ago

Suppose that you're a bridge engineer. Ten years ago, when you learned your craft it was usual to build larger, sturdy, bridges from cast iron, however recently (say five years ago) high quality bulk steel I-beams became available at a very affordable price. The bleeding edge of your discipline is use of these I-beams, they enable you to build a comparatively elegant bridge which is far stronger and yet is less easily damaged by the elements than the iron bridges. A "traditional" bridge engineer can point to examples of their preferred materials which have lasted fifty, a hundred years, and say look - we know cast iron works. You don't have that, and so there may be people who say "I don't want your new steel bridge", but on the other hand, clients may be swayed by the affordable yet better looking and more capable product. In fifty years it's no contest, your steel bridges make sense, iron bridges made by your competitors are seen as old-fashioned and unnecessarily conservative. "Didn't they have steel?" "They didn't trust it". "Huh". Now, of course it's not always so clear whether whatever you consider "Bleeding edge" is use of steel beams in bridges, or use of flammable aluminium cassette "weather cladding" on high rise buildings (a choice now seen as unacceptably dangerous). But just because it's how things were done by your grandfather doesn't mean it's a good choice today.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
A more like comparison with tech is more that there are now steel ibeams but no one at all knows how to design a bridge with an ibeam to maximize its benefit. You get certain alpha build bridges that will be totally unsafe despite using the new technology of the new material. The designs haven’t had a chance to hit their bugs and be iterated out and new bugs are expected to emerge very often. In your example your bridge builder presumably has a mature and stable software build equivalent of a steel ibeam bridge design that is basically going to be the same going forward. That’s more like when people still use cobol for decades because it works than when people are testing out the bleeding edge of software.
3eb7988a1663 2y ago
Physical infrastructure has expected lifetimes measured in years/decades. The half-life for a line of code could be as little as a year. I think being conservative in adopting new technology for something concrete is a sensible choice.

flumpcakes 2y ago

"bleeding edge" may also be unproven and more importantly it is not standardised. This is why people would muse that they trust a civil engineer over a software engineer - sectors that include physical engineering have rigorous standards. Software projects that interface with this (say, a flight computer of a new jet) also have strict standards. Ones that do not (currently) cover the "bleeding edge" in software development.