7 ms·

Anyone believing software engineering is a legitimate term should also accept context engineering as a legitimate term. Wikipedia's definition of engineering in

Anyone believing software engineering is a legitimate term should also accept context engineering as a legitimate term. Wikipedia's definition of engineering includes "The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination" and context engineering as the term is used definitely qualifies if software engineering does.

jjmarr 1y ago
Licensed engineers accept responsibility for those structures/machines/etc when they physically harm or kill others. Like lawyers or doctors being sued for malpractice. A typical person does not understand scientific principles and cannot validate whether a bridge is safe before using it. An engineer that approves a bridge can be held liable when that bridge fails, even if they had orders from their boss or company. If you're not prepared to accept personal liability when your code kills someone or causes a disaster, you shouldn't try to be an engineer. I live in a country (Canada) where software engineering is legally considered engineering and that's what officially distinguishes a "software engineer" from a "software developer". In practice, I rarely see the rule followed.
- ekianjo 1y ago
  Legal responsibility and the matter of engineering are two different and unrelated things. You can do engineering without a license.
  - hinkley 1y ago
    That's just called 'building'. Unless you're actively attacking a castle.
rester324 1y ago
Yeah, and wikipedia also states that engineering is a decision making process (often iterative) in which the engineering sciences, basic sciences and mathematics are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. So which scientific principles do context engineering apply? There is none. So yeah. It's not engineering at all.
zmmmmm 1y ago
I accept most of your point - that engineering has a much broader definition than what I'm alluding to. But the part I'll quibble with is the extent to which there are "scientific principles" involved here. This seems almost entirely empirical to me.
- wasabi991011 1y ago
  I don't believe it was empirically checked either tbh, just anecdata

jjmarr 1y ago

Licensed engineers accept responsibility for those structures/machines/etc when they physically harm or kill others. Like lawyers or doctors being sued for malpractice. A typical person does not understand scientific principles and cannot validate whether a bridge is safe before using it. An engineer that approves a bridge can be held liable when that bridge fails, even if they had orders from their boss or company. If you're not prepared to accept personal liability when your code kills someone or causes a disaster, you shouldn't try to be an engineer. I live in a country (Canada) where software engineering is legally considered engineering and that's what officially distinguishes a "software engineer" from a "software developer". In practice, I rarely see the rule followed.

ekianjo 1y ago
Legal responsibility and the matter of engineering are two different and unrelated things. You can do engineering without a license.
- hinkley 1y ago
  That's just called 'building'. Unless you're actively attacking a castle.

rester324 1y ago

Yeah, and wikipedia also states that engineering is a decision making process (often iterative) in which the engineering sciences, basic sciences and mathematics are applied to convert resources optimally to meet a stated objective. So which scientific principles do context engineering apply? There is none. So yeah. It's not engineering at all.

zmmmmm 1y ago

I accept most of your point - that engineering has a much broader definition than what I'm alluding to. But the part I'll quibble with is the extent to which there are "scientific principles" involved here. This seems almost entirely empirical to me.

wasabi991011 1y ago
I don't believe it was empirically checked either tbh, just anecdata