Here's a guy saying software engineering is not engineering and getting Steve McConnell's disagreement.
http://codebetter.com/blogs/eric.wise/archive/2007/06/26/rejecting-software-eng
If developing software is also engineering, where does it stop? Only if we can say what is and is not engineering, can we say whether programmers are engineers or not.
Perhaps it is a metaphor. Then the criterion is all in the mind.
Software and engineering: a non-sequitur (Score:1)
Software is information, not material. Good code is code where all meaningful repetition is abstracted away and all of its parts as different from each other as possible.
Engineering is about making processes dependable and repeatable while labouring under the constraints of a reality of physical laws.
I fail to see what applicability the latter can possibly have to the former. You may possibly be able to profit from rigorous engineering discipline to systematise the production of software, but even so, t
Re: (Score:1)
All software development is architecture, right up until you send source code through a compiler. That part is manufacturing.
Re: (Score:1)
Literally? Because I know that an architect would put three identical arcs next to each other on his blueprints without blinking; if a programmer wrote the same subroutine three times in a row, he wouldn’t get to work on anything noteworthy on my watch, if at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Only insofar as the part of software development where someone actually types code is still design, not production.
Re: (Score:1)
So where does an architect’s work stop being architecture and start being manufacture of blueprints?
So prior to typing the same thing thrice, you design an architecture that calls for typing it thrice?
Re: (Score:1)
In construction or in software development? In construction, it's at the point the blueprints stop changing--that is, usually, the day construction ends. In software, it's the same.
In construction, usually what happens is that the inspector says "This doesn't fly; redo it!" so you end up rewir
Re: (Score:1)
I have been trying for several days to understand the connection between your statements and the previous part of the thread, but there appears to be none. I am sorry to fail you.
Re: (Score:1)
Software is not like construction in that the only part of software development that actually manufacturers a good for end-user use is bundling the compiled (or aggregated) version for deployment.
Software is like construction in that all of the bizarre changes of architecture and requirements seen in software development also happen during physical construction of a building, sometimes even without regard for physical laws.
Having done both software development and construction, I find the classical view
engineering? (Score:1)
rjbs
Re: (Score:2)
This is one reason I get creeped out whenever I see government try to define anything. Like when government gives special privileges to journalists, for example: who is and is not a journalist?
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re: (Score:1)
Does the feeling extend to doctors? Is it a bad idea that they need to be licensed?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's actively harmful to certain forms of alternative medicine.
The free populace is infinitely more capable of determining who is and is not a safe medical practitioner than the government is. And let me note that the market can and does also establish its own certification programs. Three to five such programs for various fields of medicine would probably emerge, but the important thing is that the potential would be there for new ones to be established.
J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
Re: (Score:1)
This exact argument is one that Steve McConnell has made [stevemcconnell.com] fairly forcefully. And th