December 10, 2015 at 6:46 am
We're janitors.
We clean up the place, take out the trash and keep the mechanism humming along with regular maintenance that no one sees, appreciates or cares about until its not done.
December 10, 2015 at 6:55 am
Manic Star (12/10/2015)
We're janitors.We clean up the place, take out the trash and keep the mechanism humming along with regular maintenance that no one sees, appreciates or cares about until its not done.
I think that I am going to start lobbying to have my title changed. That describes my job perfectly.
December 10, 2015 at 7:03 am
Yes we are, and are we striving to reach the same standards as physical engineering, yes I think most of us are.
I think that article was a disservice to both professions.
However there are some things to remember that makes our engineering harder to achieve that standard:
1) its a new industry, only ~30-40 years old, not the 250+ years of industrial engineering (let alone the 3000 years of actual engineering), why would we magically reach this standard any quicker?
2) multitudes of solutions to one problem, if your building a physical structure you've got physical constraints this greatly reduces the amount of solutions, therefore each of those solutions can be studied in depth and best practises used and revised. Computer engineering doesn't have that, almost all problems have multiple solutions, there are patterns true, but the solution space is far far larger than physical engineering.
Could we help ourselves? sure, standardising on languages would obviously be a great start to this, but we're still no where near this.
December 10, 2015 at 7:06 am
Ah! So we're sanitary engineers! 🙂
On a more serious note, I am very happy to see that the consensus is that we are not engineers.
I concur and I doubt that it will change in the next 25 years.
I am not sure that we should even aspire to be engineers. . . I would be happy if IT aspired to clear thinking.
Instead, it appears to be modeled on the fashion industry.
December 10, 2015 at 7:08 am
Nelson Petersen (12/10/2015)
Ah! So we're sanitary engineers! 🙂On a more serious note, I am very happy to see that the consensus is that we are not engineers.
I concur and I doubt that it will change in the next 25 years.
I am not sure that we should even aspire to be engineers. . . I would be happy if IT aspired to clear thinking.
Instead, it appears to be modeled on the fashion industry.
"The Devil codes Powershell"?
December 10, 2015 at 7:17 am
I've been watching this debate for 40 years now. There are components of the computing industry that are true engineers but that is largely because they evolved out of broader engineering disciplines such as Electrical Engineering. Software, however, is still in the early stages of craftsmanship. We have not even formalized our training and experience to provide for a software guild, let alone a formal discipline. In a guild, you would see an apprenticeship under the guidance of master/mentors, followed by some years of journeyman as one hones their craft. Finally would come acceptance into the ranks of masters by their peers. Over time, that mastery level would become formalized into a true discipline built on sound principles, reliable historical data, core ethics, and a professional code of conduct. Skills could be measured and performance assessed reliably.
Software is a long way from being a discipline; engineering or not. I still think Gerald Weinberg said it best when he opined "if builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."
There are no facts, only interpretations.
Friedrich Nietzsche
December 10, 2015 at 7:19 am
When I graduated from the University of South Carolina, Computer Science was in the College of Math and Science; sometime later, the Computer Science program was moved to the College of Engineering. The College of Engineering at the time when I was a student, had a Computer Engineering program that focused on the hardware.
So, yea, we are engineers.
December 10, 2015 at 7:19 am
I'm proud of my achievements - there's precious few other people will ever know or care about those to be fair, so I'm in a field of one on that count. I don't much mind what anyone calls me as long as someone is still willing to pay me. I'm a developer and that, and the processes and knowledge I have refined over many years, are good enough for me.
December 10, 2015 at 7:25 am
barry.mcconnell (12/10/2015)
<snip>Software is a long way from being a discipline; engineering or not. I still think Gerald Weinberg said it best when he opined "if builders built buildings the way programmers write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization."
Not quite. The first one would knock down the building, then the building would be shored up against woodpeckers. No more problems from woodpeckers.
However, don't lean against that one particular pillar.
Basically, we deal with very complex systems that have an almost infinite number of variables. We do our best to meet the use cases, but we can never anticipate the uh, 'creativity' of the end user. They will find a non-documented use case every single time and then whine that the system doesn't meet their needs. Why didn't we anticipate the unexpected use case? Why did we only build to the specs? Didn't we know they NEED this, like today possibly, can you fix it for me now?
December 10, 2015 at 7:26 am
GilaMonster (12/10/2015)
No, we're not. We don't have the rigour, the formality, the adherence to standards that characterises engineering disciplines. The scientific method is not 'try stuff at random until something works', which is how way too many people code. We don't, as an industry, have an attitude of continual education, of 'standing on the shoulder of giants', of rigorous discipline.Can you imagine a bridge being designed and built based on the latest cool, gee-wizz framework of the week, with an 'we if it doesn't work we can fix it later' attitude? Or with 'I want to do it myself, not use someone else's solution'?
How do I wrap my new bridge in a TRY ... CATCH? 🙂
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
December 10, 2015 at 7:37 am
Designing the storage and retrieval of data isn't the same as designing computer processors or power grids (engineering). One good analogy to what we do are chefs or construction workers. There are some basic best practices we should follow to insure the security, reliability, and usability of our end product, and there can be industry regulations to govern aspects that might negatively impact public safety, but at the end of the day what we do is craft with a wide degree of latitude for implementation.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 10, 2015 at 7:38 am
How do I wrap my new bridge in a TRY ... CATCH? 🙂
The same way Roman engineers did. Put your entire family underneath and march an army across the bridge four times. Is it any wonder Romans over-engineered everything? LOL
There are no facts, only interpretations.
Friedrich Nietzsche
December 10, 2015 at 7:43 am
barry.mcconnell (12/10/2015)
How do I wrap my new bridge in a TRY ... CATCH? 🙂
The same way Roman engineers did. Put your entire family underneath and march an army across the bridge four times. Is it any wonder Romans over-engineered everything? LOL
This does point out a huge difference between software and physical systems. The stakes on the physical systems as far as cost and safety are radically different most of the time from soft systems.
I mean a bad pointer causing blue screen can generally be rebooted out of, a bridge collapse kills people, local economy, etc. You can't just reboot it.
My guess is the higher the stakes to the system being built, the more sturdy its build is. Most of our projects just don't need to be that sturdy.
The few times they do and we don't meet those specs, you have things like the OPM breach. Where did that fall down?
December 10, 2015 at 7:52 am
I'm in agreement with those that say we are not engineers. However to those that say we should have the same standards or disciplines as those who design cruise ships and high-rises, I would ask what effect that would have on development costs.
(I'm loving this thread, Steve)
December 10, 2015 at 7:56 am
jshahan (12/10/2015)
I'm in agreement with those that say we are not engineers. However to those that say we should have the same standards or disciplines as those who design cruise ships and high-rises, I would ask what effect that would have on development costs.(I'm loving this thread, Steve)
Should we or should we not have the same standards? That depends a lot of the purpose of the software.
For best practices on asking questions, please read the following article: Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 67 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply