4 ms·

"It is curious vs complacent w/ a heavy sprinkle of hard work, creativity, and intelligence." Formal training brings with it information that others have shown

"It is curious vs complacent w/ a heavy sprinkle of hard work, creativity, and intelligence." Formal training brings with it information that others have shown to be vital knowledge that must be known. No doubt many self taught people master a profession better than those who've gone through formal training with a complacent attitude but it's the latter's training that guarantees students master certain points that the self-taught might put less emphasis on. I'd be much happier crossing a bridge built by a structural engineer who has had certain rules (safety margins, etc.) drummed into him ad nauseam.

austin-cheney 1y ago
> that must be known That sounds rather foolish. That must have knowledge often becomes a layer of vanity concerns to cloak the ignorance lying beneath as defined by comfort and not utility. For example if developers are formally educated in the style of OOP with classes for inheritance then for most of those people all programming must resemble that style even when it does not apply and costs more to use. Any attempt to deviate from such familiarity often results in purely emotional responses. This such nonsense becomes frustrating when it unnecessarily limits work progression. > a bridge built by a structural engineer Civil engineers are qualified by license while software developers are not. That distinction is monumental.
Mawr 1y ago
Comparisons between software and structural engineering make no sense, ever. Structures are one-and-done projects with engineers having access to concrete data on material strength, load calculations, etc. Software projects are never ending, always chasing ever changing requirements. There are no comforting rules of math and physics to fall back on. There are no "load and safety" calculations that another software engineer can perform on a program to verify its integrity.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "Software projects are never ending, always chasing ever changing requirements." Exactly, and that's the problem. Writing software isn't engineering (it ought to be—my opinion and that of many others). Read this (things are actually worse since it was written): www.researchgate.net/profile/Wayt-Gibbs/publication/247573088_Software%27s_Chronic_Crisis/links/0046353b4cb57cc197000000/Softwares-Chronic-Crisis.pdf?
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    Try this link (unfortunately it's without images and diagrams but is easily accessible): https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html
- p_v_doom 1y ago
  Completely agree on software engineering. Not sure if it shouldve been callled engineering ever, but calling it applied philosophy sounds even more pretentious, and while we try to pretend to be rigorous and structured, software engineering really shares a lot more with writing than with building bridges. That said, I think we sometimes tend to overestimate how structured projects like bridges are, and that almost everything we have discovered about software projects applies there too, just to a less extend - delays, changing requirements, unrealistic planning, last moment extra requests etc. etc.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    "Completely agree on software engineering. …engineering really shares a lot more with writing than with building bridges." OK, so what happens when the weak link in the chain in building a bridge or other critical structure like a plane is the software that helped design it? So-called software engineers want their cake and eat it too. They aren't prepared for the rigors and discipline of real engineering yet they expect to take equal part (and claim credit) in engineering projects. That's how we get disasters such as the 737Max and I'd bet London to a brick it won't be the last. I'm not alone in holding this view: https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html
    - p_v_doom 1y ago
      Nah, managers are usually the ones that are not prepared for the rigors and discipline, because managers view writing code as something both easy and kind of wishy-washy.
tekknik 1y ago
> I'd be much happier crossing a bridge built by a structural engineer who has had certain rules (safety margins, etc.) drummed into him ad nauseam. If the bridge passes inspection and is considered safe then your attitude would be a form of elitism no? The point from some of your parents is that they can do just a good of a job or better.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  OK, so let's avoid elitism by doing away with standards altogether. No doubt, doing away with the ISO would bring joy to the treasurers of contributing member states. Whilst we're at it, why not do way with the Metric system which would bring cheers from Trump's backward America? What I said has absolutely nothing to do with elitism. Your point is a circular argument that spirals inward and ends up going nowhere. Professionalism and excellence not only have to be learned but also require diligence and persistence under the guidance of skilled professional educators, it's why we have universities. It's nonsense to suggest that parents can do a better job than professional eductors/training. Perhaps that notion comes from only-in-America homeschooling. Where I come from we'd never entertain the idea for a moment.
  - tekknik 1y ago
    I think you missed the point and have some misunderstanding that the self taught engineer doesn’t follow standards, which then points back to the elitism. To put it more simply, you have a misunderstanding that going to school means your better in an age when every bit of knowledge is available online for free. I’ve worked with so many engineers with degrees that just churn out code. None of them seemed to care about maintainability or anything other than checking the boxes for the next promotion. A self taught engineer cares so much about the craft to teach it to themselves. The knowledge gained is the same, and syllabuses from major colleges are available online for free. The only thing missing is passing the tests for the piece of paper that says you passed the tests. That’s it. I’ve also found that most people with a degree only care so much about the craft as they care about not having to go back to school to learn a new one, or to put it another way, they are only financially invested. > Where I come from we'd never entertain the idea for a moment. Where exactly is this so I know not to visit? I’m one of those degenerates that are self taught so you should let me know so I stay out and don’t offend you.

austin-cheney 1y ago

> that must be known That sounds rather foolish. That must have knowledge often becomes a layer of vanity concerns to cloak the ignorance lying beneath as defined by comfort and not utility. For example if developers are formally educated in the style of OOP with classes for inheritance then for most of those people all programming must resemble that style even when it does not apply and costs more to use. Any attempt to deviate from such familiarity often results in purely emotional responses. This such nonsense becomes frustrating when it unnecessarily limits work progression. > a bridge built by a structural engineer Civil engineers are qualified by license while software developers are not. That distinction is monumental.

Mawr 1y ago

Comparisons between software and structural engineering make no sense, ever. Structures are one-and-done projects with engineers having access to concrete data on material strength, load calculations, etc. Software projects are never ending, always chasing ever changing requirements. There are no comforting rules of math and physics to fall back on. There are no "load and safety" calculations that another software engineer can perform on a program to verify its integrity.

hilbert42 1y ago
"Software projects are never ending, always chasing ever changing requirements." Exactly, and that's the problem. Writing software isn't engineering (it ought to be—my opinion and that of many others). Read this (things are actually worse since it was written): www.researchgate.net/profile/Wayt-Gibbs/publication/247573088_Software%27s_Chronic_Crisis/links/0046353b4cb57cc197000000/Softwares-Chronic-Crisis.pdf?
- hilbert42 1y ago
  Try this link (unfortunately it's without images and diagrams but is easily accessible): https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html
p_v_doom 1y ago
Completely agree on software engineering. Not sure if it shouldve been callled engineering ever, but calling it applied philosophy sounds even more pretentious, and while we try to pretend to be rigorous and structured, software engineering really shares a lot more with writing than with building bridges. That said, I think we sometimes tend to overestimate how structured projects like bridges are, and that almost everything we have discovered about software projects applies there too, just to a less extend - delays, changing requirements, unrealistic planning, last moment extra requests etc. etc.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  "Completely agree on software engineering. …engineering really shares a lot more with writing than with building bridges." OK, so what happens when the weak link in the chain in building a bridge or other critical structure like a plane is the software that helped design it? So-called software engineers want their cake and eat it too. They aren't prepared for the rigors and discipline of real engineering yet they expect to take equal part (and claim credit) in engineering projects. That's how we get disasters such as the 737Max and I'd bet London to a brick it won't be the last. I'm not alone in holding this view: https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html https://www.fceia.unr.edu.ar/asist/gibbs00.html
  - p_v_doom 1y ago
    Nah, managers are usually the ones that are not prepared for the rigors and discipline, because managers view writing code as something both easy and kind of wishy-washy.

tekknik 1y ago

> I'd be much happier crossing a bridge built by a structural engineer who has had certain rules (safety margins, etc.) drummed into him ad nauseam. If the bridge passes inspection and is considered safe then your attitude would be a form of elitism no? The point from some of your parents is that they can do just a good of a job or better.

hilbert42 1y ago
OK, so let's avoid elitism by doing away with standards altogether. No doubt, doing away with the ISO would bring joy to the treasurers of contributing member states. Whilst we're at it, why not do way with the Metric system which would bring cheers from Trump's backward America? What I said has absolutely nothing to do with elitism. Your point is a circular argument that spirals inward and ends up going nowhere. Professionalism and excellence not only have to be learned but also require diligence and persistence under the guidance of skilled professional educators, it's why we have universities. It's nonsense to suggest that parents can do a better job than professional eductors/training. Perhaps that notion comes from only-in-America homeschooling. Where I come from we'd never entertain the idea for a moment.
- tekknik 1y ago
  I think you missed the point and have some misunderstanding that the self taught engineer doesn’t follow standards, which then points back to the elitism. To put it more simply, you have a misunderstanding that going to school means your better in an age when every bit of knowledge is available online for free. I’ve worked with so many engineers with degrees that just churn out code. None of them seemed to care about maintainability or anything other than checking the boxes for the next promotion. A self taught engineer cares so much about the craft to teach it to themselves. The knowledge gained is the same, and syllabuses from major colleges are available online for free. The only thing missing is passing the tests for the piece of paper that says you passed the tests. That’s it. I’ve also found that most people with a degree only care so much about the craft as they care about not having to go back to school to learn a new one, or to put it another way, they are only financially invested. > Where I come from we'd never entertain the idea for a moment. Where exactly is this so I know not to visit? I’m one of those degenerates that are self taught so you should let me know so I stay out and don’t offend you.