3 ms·

Abut the programmer/engineer dichotomy: He uses the word "programmer" only for people that write code, and the word "engineer" for people that design technical

by demian 14y ago

Abut the programmer/engineer dichotomy: He uses the word "programmer" only for people that write code, and the word "engineer" for people that design technical solutions. Somebody can be both, a "programmer" and an "engineer", but a "programmer" is not necessarily an "engineer" if the actual technical design, strategy, and main technical questions are answered by another person (the "engineer"). This division of labour is a common model in some Big Co's (with ~50 programmers or more), not in small-medium size compaines or in the startup world. IMHO this model is not perfect, but there is a point when the time of a high level technical person should not be wasted in trivial implementation details (whatever you call him "programmer" or "engineer")

Surio 14y ago
You may find this abstraction post interesting/entertaining.... http://earlyretirementextreme.com/scientists-vs-engineers.html http://earlyretirementextreme.com/scientists-vs-engineers.ht...
- demian 14y ago
  Thanks for sharing! Of course this is mainly semantics, but I don't agree with the way the post uses the terms "scientist" and "engineer". In my opinion, the difference between "scientist" and "engineer" lies in the nature of the work they do, not in the level of abstraction: "Scientists" advance scientific knowledge. "Engineers" design technology applying this knowledge. I find the analogy kind of muddy, I believe that a programming language is a product of "engineering", not "science". "Engineers" had been using abstractions (black boxes) designed by other "Engineers" for quite some time now.
  - Surio 14y ago
    > Of course this is mainly semantics Correct. If you went through the comments in that post and the linked previous post, other people also went ballistic [precisely] because of the usage of the terms rather than the abstraction he was trying to make. So, in the end it boils down to "point of view" of looking at things, leading to the fatalistic "to each their own" response. :-)

by demian 14y ago

Surio 14y ago

You may find this abstraction post interesting/entertaining.... http://earlyretirementextreme.com/scientists-vs-engineers.html http://earlyretirementextreme.com/scientists-vs-engineers.ht...

demian 14y ago
Thanks for sharing! Of course this is mainly semantics, but I don't agree with the way the post uses the terms "scientist" and "engineer". In my opinion, the difference between "scientist" and "engineer" lies in the nature of the work they do, not in the level of abstraction: "Scientists" advance scientific knowledge. "Engineers" design technology applying this knowledge. I find the analogy kind of muddy, I believe that a programming language is a product of "engineering", not "science". "Engineers" had been using abstractions (black boxes) designed by other "Engineers" for quite some time now.
- Surio 14y ago
  > Of course this is mainly semantics Correct. If you went through the comments in that post and the linked previous post, other people also went ballistic [precisely] because of the usage of the terms rather than the abstraction he was trying to make. So, in the end it boils down to "point of view" of looking at things, leading to the fatalistic "to each their own" response. :-)