3 ms·

Comparisons between software and structural engineering make no sense, ever. Structures are one-and-done projects with engineers having access to concrete data

by 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.

by Mawr 1y ago

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.