4 ms·

> most engineering is based on inviolable physical rules Don't rules such as those of algorithmic complexity have the same status and position? They are as obj

by hxa7241 17y ago

> most engineering is based on inviolable physical rules Don't rules such as those of algorithmic complexity have the same status and position? They are as objectively certain -- more so, in fact, since they are purely logical. At its base, software is built on bits and operations, which are entirely determinate. The ramifications might not currently be fully understood or exploited (software is only about 50 years old!), but the potential is there. As an example: with CPUs like the Z80 it was possible to count clock cycles of instructions, and determine upper/lower/average running times of code. That would be equivalent to determining resultant forces across a whole physical structure. Today, CPU makers have made things difficult, but that is completely contingent: it would in principle be possible to predict performance, in an engineering fashion, for many purposes.

wallflower 17y ago
In the homework we do for engineering classes, we would be able to make simplifications without fundamentally altering the problem. For example a continuous load on a structure could be modeled as a single force vector because G, the gravitational force always acts downwards. You can't do that in software with loosely-coupled, autonomous modules. These modules do not obey anything. Just an implicit contract that can be broken easily. Unit tests only help to clarify the contract for a module or between modules. In structural engineering, there are a lot of unknowns but they can be modeled across the entire range because there are many known constants. The load-bearing capacity of the beam, the moment (the twisting force acting on the beam). Virtual abstractions like software do not obey physical rules. Because they are virtual. You can create a Castle in the Air in your program world, if you like. Hard physical reality has real constraints. Virtual reality has flexible constraints. Physical reality is one of the reasons building construction is a solved problem. The irony is with sophisticated software, architects like S. Calatrava and F. Gehry can begin to create almost Castles in the Air.

by hxa7241 17y ago

wallflower 17y ago

In the homework we do for engineering classes, we would be able to make simplifications without fundamentally altering the problem. For example a continuous load on a structure could be modeled as a single force vector because G, the gravitational force always acts downwards. You can't do that in software with loosely-coupled, autonomous modules. These modules do not obey anything. Just an implicit contract that can be broken easily. Unit tests only help to clarify the contract for a module or between modules. In structural engineering, there are a lot of unknowns but they can be modeled across the entire range because there are many known constants. The load-bearing capacity of the beam, the moment (the twisting force acting on the beam). Virtual abstractions like software do not obey physical rules. Because they are virtual. You can create a Castle in the Air in your program world, if you like. Hard physical reality has real constraints. Virtual reality has flexible constraints. Physical reality is one of the reasons building construction is a solved problem. The irony is with sophisticated software, architects like S. Calatrava and F. Gehry can begin to create almost Castles in the Air.