4 ms·

> I write software that runs on various jet engines. There is a lot of software that goes onto a modern commercial engine, but the general theme of the software

> I write software that runs on various jet engines. There is a lot of software that goes onto a modern commercial engine, but the general theme of the software I focus on is the modeling of the underlying engine dynamics using sensor data. It's very math- and physics-based. A thorough knowledge of linear algebra, signal processing, regressions, and clustering/neural network algorithms is essential, among other things. > I've made numerous rebuttals (many right here on HN) to claims that software development is not engineering, citing aerospace examples to the contrary. I don't get this pattern of argument. If the question is "is programming math" or "is programming engineering," it is not an answer to point out that some programming tasks require engineering or math skills. Doesn't this simply establish that certain problem domains require those skills while others don't? The same pattern of argument could be used, I would think, to "demonstrate" that writing is math or engineering: after all, if you're writing a textbook on engineering you sure need to know something math and engineering. But surely nobody would accept that writing, therefore, IS either of those things. Or pick another social science: knowledge of math sure does help if you want to perform a quantitative sociological study, but I don't think that this makes sociology math. One might make a somewhat stronger claim about programming: math and engineering skills will make anyone a better programmer. I think this is probably true, to some extent, and this is what is at issue in the articles' debate over the usefulness of mathematical measures of complexity. But this also does not establish that programming "is" either a branch of math or engineering. Then again, I really have no idea what turns on any of these distinctions or, therefore, why we would be debating them for any reason beyond philosophical curiosity. Isn't it enough to say "no, programming isn't math [or engineering], but like many other disciplines, programming bears some conceptual similarities to math, and a grasp of mathematics [or engineering] will make you a better programmer"?

tjr 12y ago
Then again, I really have no idea ... why we would be debating them for any reason beyond philosophical curiosity. Indeed. I am not aware of any other field that seems so obsessed with making up comparisons about what it is, is not, or intersects with.
- dangerlibrary 12y ago
  Then you are not aware of very many other fields.
  - tjr 12y ago
    Please feel free to enlighten me! I would genuinely be interested in seeing how we software developers are not alone in this manner.
    - pdabbadabba 12y ago
      Well, somewhat notoriously, there has been a rolling debate for better than a century now over whether "higher" sciences simply are complex subdiciplines of "lower" sciences. E.g., are all biologists ultimately just physicists? How about psychologists? Economists? The proper meaning of "are" itself in that sentence also, rightly, is the subject of significant dispute. But the analogy isn't the best since I think that philosophers enjoy that question a lot more than actual scientists. A more interesting example may be law and economics. There has been a concerted movement by certain economists/legal theorists to show either that law is simply applied (or misapplied) economics, or that it should be. (Here's a taste: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/cooterr/PDFpapers/stratcon.PDF http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/cooterr/PDFpapers/stratc...) Again, though, the analogy is imperfect. I don't think that many would claim that law "is" economics, but rather that legal rules are or should be explicable in strictly economic terms. Though maybe this would satisfy some definitions of "is."
    - myg204 12y ago
      Is fashion art or not is a common minor debate in this field. Others I've heard: is physics math? Is math physics?

tjr 12y ago

Then again, I really have no idea ... why we would be debating them for any reason beyond philosophical curiosity. Indeed. I am not aware of any other field that seems so obsessed with making up comparisons about what it is, is not, or intersects with.

dangerlibrary 12y ago
Then you are not aware of very many other fields.
- tjr 12y ago
  Please feel free to enlighten me! I would genuinely be interested in seeing how we software developers are not alone in this manner.
  - pdabbadabba 12y ago
    Well, somewhat notoriously, there has been a rolling debate for better than a century now over whether "higher" sciences simply are complex subdiciplines of "lower" sciences. E.g., are all biologists ultimately just physicists? How about psychologists? Economists? The proper meaning of "are" itself in that sentence also, rightly, is the subject of significant dispute. But the analogy isn't the best since I think that philosophers enjoy that question a lot more than actual scientists. A more interesting example may be law and economics. There has been a concerted movement by certain economists/legal theorists to show either that law is simply applied (or misapplied) economics, or that it should be. (Here's a taste: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/cooterr/PDFpapers/stratcon.PDF http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/cooterr/PDFpapers/stratc...) Again, though, the analogy is imperfect. I don't think that many would claim that law "is" economics, but rather that legal rules are or should be explicable in strictly economic terms. Though maybe this would satisfy some definitions of "is."
  - myg204 12y ago
    Is fashion art or not is a common minor debate in this field. Others I've heard: is physics math? Is math physics?