... the big disadvantage to software engineering is we deal in abstractions. Everything down to the foundation moves.
You’re very positive. When you see a developer dealing with a bug, it seems more like they are dealing with a turd palace floating in a sewer.
But you control the poopy stack.
Mythbusters did it:
> Adam and Jamie first visited the zoo to obtain a variety of feces to try to polish. Poop collected, they tried to pick the most polishable candidates, and then baked them to remove the moisture. Adam tried to shine his poop with a buffing wheel, while Jamie's tactic of applying a furniture polish caused a philosophical disagreement between the two. Adam eventually brought in an outside expert to teach them dorodango, a Japanese art form that allows a practitioner to apply a shine to dirt using nothing but water and physical effort. Applying this technique, Adam and Jamie were both able to polish balls of poop without using any foreign materials as judged by a gloss meter, exceeding a standard of 70 gloss units for high gloss.[0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Epis... (Section: You Can't Polish Poop)
But I think it's also partly illuminating the fact that hardware engineers are true engineers, while software engineers mostly aren't.
Yes replication:
Oops we got hacked. I wonder what happens if we write insecure code again.
Oops we got hacked. I wonder what happens if we write insecure code again.
Oops we missed a deadline. I wonder what happens if we underestimate again.
Oops we missed a deadline. I wonder what happens if we underestimate again.
Engineers are good at building bridges, and artists are good at making paintings. That doesnt mean it is a good idea to have the engineers paint paintings.
Somehow the people who made the hardware are engineers, but the people who made the software aren't engineers.
It just has to do with the subject matter and definition of Engineer. The clearest delineation is that an Engineers work is the application the laws of physics. Software developers are more akin to Scientists than Engineers. They work in the arrangement of logic and the semantic relation of abstractions.
That is to say, Engineers work within a framework of rules, and Computer scientists construct frameworks of rules.
It's hard to pin down exact agreed upon definitions in English, but I searched many popular dictionaries and none of them have "Engineers work is the application the laws of physics".
Fair enough if you want to have personal definitions of words, but don't try to gaslight the rest of us into thinking your understanding is the canonical one.
Here's my facetious definition to illustrate how dumb the discussion - I think an engineer is a person who works with ENGINES (duh it's in the name). Obviously people who build bridges aren't engineers; do bridges have engines?
But, someone who isn't wearing a blue and white stripey hat can't possibly be an engineer.
Can you articulate the difference between an engineer and a scientist?
> I brought up a definition shared by many people
What you did is discount the definition used much more widely and commonly. You didn't just bring up a new possible definition, you declared another one invalid by saying "Because software development isnt an engineering task".
If you want social counter-proof you can go to LinkedIn and type "Software Engineer" to see how many people consider Software Engineering to be a form of engineering.
> Do you have a real definition that you can bring to the table?
Yes, the definition that I think has the most use to society and is most precise while still being inclusive is "Engineers are people who solve real world problems in resource constrained environments". In fact I think the best engineers work across mediums, including software. For example, someone who engineers a robot has to do mechanical and software.
> Is there a reason why you are taking things personally?
I'm not, not sure what leads you to conclude this.
> Can you articulate the difference between an engineer and a scientist?
No I can't. Does that matter?
Art is for everyone. Painting is a special form of art. Math makes for beautiful art, so download LibreCAD and free your mind.
(Speaking as an ex. IT guy, ex. CNC machinist who is attending art school at the age of 40 as a form of rehab.)
Leaving aside the four splits, Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, and Electronic with the obvious corollary that few Engineers build bridges, I'm reminded of my first student Engineering project back in 1983 (ish).
Building a sheep shearing robot - hardware and software, with no pre existing libraries of control software, etc.
https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/clippings/how-nece...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/robotica/article/abs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAh2zv7TMM
A great chunk of software was written by Peter Kovesi .. a mechanical engineer still working on computer vision projects today: https://peterkovesi.com/projects/
You sound more than a little ignorant of the breadth and depth of talent in the world and more than a little inclined to believe that people can be boxed up and ring fenced by your particular world view.
No sheep were harmed in the making of this robot. Sheep literally fell asleep when secured.
If software techies/engineers wish to push back, may I suggest: Tay bridge, Tacoma Narrows, Millennium bridge and concrete cancer. Comet commercial jet airliners and the many snags that lead to fillets and rounded corners on ships int al. Do we count Titanic as "user error" or inappropriate expectations exceeded?
So an applied physicist discovers the light-emitting diode. An electrical engineer designs an LED light panel. An electrician wires light panels into a home.
Likewise, a computer scientist discovers NFA reduction, an engineer uses it to build a regular expression compiler, and a developer writes a regex to validate email addresses.
People certified to be licensed engineers didn't necessarily graduate from a School of Engineering at a famous university that is also filled with physicists and mathematicians and English literature. Instead they need to study, learn, and pass the tests that legally certify them as Licensed Engineers™ to keep us all safe. It's much of the same material, overlapping, but not the same. They're less likely to consider themselves ready to move over to building rocketships to the moon on the basis of their bachelors degree.
This is the source of all the debate about who is an Engineer and who is not. Licensed Engineers don't want to consider unlicensed engineers as engineers. People who went to universities and had to study a dose of liberal arts along with control theory to get their "Engineering degree" don't want to consider the choo choo Train Engineer™ as an engineer.
In the US there is a bit of academic snobbery around, it's not universal but, University of Michigan is harder to get into academically, and a little more high falutin'. Michigan State is a bit more plebian but more practical. University of Washington vs. Washington State, same thing, and so on. The licensed engineers are more likely to come from the State school, the unlicensed engineers more likely from the University of. Both want recognition for their training, which makes sense.
I'm exaggerating for effect, but this is the issue. Whether software engineers are engineers is a minor skirmish on the flank of this larger war, both because there are no certifications for computer engineers, and because mathematicians are not engineers and programming languages can be studied from a mathematical perspective or from something closer to Electrical Engineering.
The sticking point is what licensed tradesperson would sign off on work done by another unlicensed person?
Here, I've often done full 240 V AC wiring and gas fitting for houses, workshops, abd glass blowing | ceramic studios .. but never connected or made any of it live, instead I've called in local tradespeople to inspect and test the work from end to end, just as they would check the work of an apprentice, and then certify it.
It's been cheaper for me that way as well as allowing for better control of how I want things to go, it's been less hours work for them in an area where they're in high demand and a bit of a win-win.
On at least two such jobs I've been advised to change some details as the most recent codes had changed and required things I'd been unaware of, no drama.
And no, in general university electrical engineers don't leave university with the practical trades skills to wire looms between power plants and racks of mills, screens, and grinders drawing high voltage high amp three phase and requiring complex control and instrumentation circuits.
They can sketch that out but they rarely get the practical cable pulling, wire cutting, box layout, etc experience outside of an actual trade apprenticeship type role.
if you want to cut a hole in your wall to put in a window, it could be as easy as cutting a hole and putting in a window. Or, it could be that it's a "load bearing" wall, and you need to put a wide I-beam over the new window to safely redistribute/bear the load that the formerly intact wall was carrying. Or, you could have chosen a spot on the wall that has a column/pillar that's holding the roof up. Probably you'd choose a different spot, but if wanted that spot you could hire some engineers to figure out a new set of "cantilevers" or "flying buttresses" or (i'm not this type of engineer, I'm just throwing around words).
As the work you do becomes more and more dangerous to more and more people, you need somebody with higher levels of certification/licensure to approve the plan.
an electrician, who has a license, is not an engineer, but a good electrician could become one if she wanted, it would require study and exam passing. Some electrical work an electrician is allowed to do, they can "self certify", but the city might spot inspect it. The next level of complexity they perform the work, but a building inspector needs to inspect. The next level of complexity, the plans need to be certified and approved in advance.
I'm sort of making this up, piecing it together how steam fitting is done (that's mechanical engineering), how air handling is done (also mechanical engineering), plumbing, etc. But this is the general scheme.
some of this is legacy disputes left over from the 19th century. When they were inventing electrical circuits, everybody was an engineer and everybody could do everything, and people just invented stuff on the spot and tried it. After enough people died, it was decided we needed standards. And slowly a white collar/blue collar sort of distinction started to emerge, for work that required calculus vs work that requires knowledge of lots of specific requirements.
Calculus people design cars and planes with smooth sleek shapes, but those items can't be constructed without the other type of engineer saying "hey, that's not strong enough"
For a more principled approach, I would say (as one of these “licensed engineers who has not done as much actual engineering”) that engineering as I have seen it kind of has three really major themes:
• Prototyping/building/creation. Tinkering. I guess the reason we don't talk about this is that everybody finds it trivial? But when you talk to ChemEs and they discuss optimizing pipelines for chemical processes you do see that it can get a little abstract so it's worth pointing to as a baseline.
• An underlying scientific theory that guides the models used. Building stuff has happened since way before science but engineering is clearly a postscientific endeavor, “here’s the underlying mechanical principles of how this works.” This is probably the sketchier principle in how we talk about “is this software design really engineering,” we tend to not have a firm scientific understanding of the problem domain of building software. Some things like CAP theorem, patch theories in version control (Darcs, Pijul), distributed consensus algorithms, TCP/IP, I would say really rise to that challenge and say something hard-learned about real systems. Things like OS kernels also have so much trial and error, so much prototyping that it feels like “yes you really did do enough hypothesis-test-reëvaluate cycles that the result embodies a model of the problem domain that counts as a scientific understanding.” But a lot of our work is just gluing systems together and that seems more “electrician” than “electrical engineering.” Now, science uses math, so people think of engineering as highly mathematical, I am not sure that it has to be. Whereas I do think it has to be scientifically based.
• The last big thing that I think we don't talk about enough is risk assessment. The reason that we’re doing all of this science and math to build a bridge, is so that we can assess how strong it needs to be to just barely survive the peak loads that it will ever have, and then double that strength just in case.
I think that when we say “not all programmers are doing software engineering” a good proxy for that is looking at, first, do you have a scientific model of the sorts of approaches that you can do; and then, do you use it to assess numerically the kind of loads that your system will come under up-front and design accordingly—writes per second, queries per second—and set realistic targets and choose caching and consensus and whatever else to achieve those and measure that you have... Or do you work via crude heuristics, “we use Kubernetes so I'm sure it will scale later, we do ‘best practices’ so we don't have to think about those,” and related kludges where we can comfortably say you're just tinkering rather than being principled about it.
And then, this reveals that maybe you don't need to be doing engineering, maybe you really do just need to tinker in the problem space while you achieve better product-market fit. Maybe you are doing science rather than engineering, and that is okay. Like, the idea that you are going to launch the next space shuttle with your reliability, I am sure that makes for a very energized, focused workplace, but it's not a precondition, it's not the only way to get there.
That said, it's also on the order of a hundred years younger a discipline and our theory is not so well developed.
Yeah, no.
Yes, there are a lot of "developers". But there are also software engineers, even if our engineering craft is less-well developed by the standards of civil engineering or mechanical engineering. I understand engineering organizations (like those in Canada) who oppose the use of the term "software engineer" because there's no common code of practice or standards in the same way that those who wear the iron ring claim is incorrect.
I think that we, as a profession, need a code of ethics (and the ACM has a good one, https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/) and the application of software in certain cases should absolutely be regulated the same way that the various physical engineering practices are (healthcare, AI, finance, legal applications) so that there are consequences for the businesses and potentially the software engineers involved with those businesses when they cause harm (see sentencing guideline software in the US; see the contract that developed the Royal Mail "audit" software that could never work as advertised; see the rampant fraud that is crypto; see the abuse of generative models to software-wash copyright violations).
But the lack of regulatory bodies does not mean that there's not a practice of engineering involved, it just means that there's no regulatory body that governs said practice.
Just to clarify, there's no issue in Canada with "software engineer" specifically. "Engineer" is the protected term, and you have to be licensed to use it. So the issue applies to calling yourself any kind of engineer without being licensed.
If you are a licensed professional engineer in the software field, you can refer to yourself as a software engineer. This is just uncommon because there are not a lot of programs that grant BEng in software, the licensing is rarely relevant, and most people take CS anyway.
The IEEE documented that a little different:
It is the IEEE-USA position that:
• Individuals who have graduated with an engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering education should not be prohibited from using the title “Engineer.”
• The protected titles “Professional Engineer,” “Licensed Engineer,” “Registered Engineer,” and variations thereof, should be reserved for those whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public health, safety and welfare -- and who have been licensed to practice engineering by a jurisdiction.
From: https://ieeeusa.org/assets/public-policy/positions/workforce...
The objection is IMO as linguistically specious as the one aimed by MDs against PhDs. Both are entitled to the honorific Doctor, and context is as important as anything else.
Ah yes. Meanwhile, my friend who's a mech-e at a car company starts from scratch on every single last project, never reusing components, and also machines every component from scratch because there's no such thing as McMaster or any other vendor. When he works on a project, the physical parts never ever fit together like Lego. It's not like he'd use calipers or something to do what's called measuring (twice!) so that things fit together.
There are plenty of places to demand more rigor from people writing software before considering it engineering, but reuse of parts, and having them fit together nicely is a weird one.
And for me, 100 times out of 100 I'm taking the capable guy who can fix the brakes on a trip like this over someone who's first and (likely) only instinct is to call a tow truck.
Also the story is unfair on the manager. The manager would call everyone in to have a war room meeting on how to fix this urgent production issues. They’d give a quick overview of the problem the open it up for the experts to talk. While the tech whizzes are talking they would order pizza or yum cha or something for the team.
Only the brakes don't work - the engine still does. Why would they need to push the car uphill?
So, using previous records, they should estimate fuel usage during the decent. Then they should walk to the nearest fuel station, purchase fuel, and walk back. During that time, they can calculate the amount of fuel that will evaporate while they have the gas cap off and the amount of fuel that will stick to the walls of the piping between the gas cap and the fuel tank. This way when they return to the car, they can put in almost exactly the amount of fuel that was consumed during their harrowing stop.
This presumes the fuel station has the same mixture as they have in their tank. Otherwise all bets are off and they should simply give up.
"I know," said the department manager, "Let's have a meeting, propose a Vision, formulate a Mission Statement, define some Goals and by a process of Continuous Improvement find a solution to the Critical Problems, and we can be on our way."
Knowingly the hardware engineer and the software engineer looked at each other. "Actually the car is fine, but let's pick a driver that knows what they are doing this time. You simply don't know how to use the breaks and were randomly steering left and right while thinking you're on track, management guy."
You’re saying the power to do that makes software engineers ridiculous or impractical?
Engineering inside a digital space gives the kind of debugging abilities that would be straight up miraculous in a physical disciple. If I have one thing, and I want to make ten more of those to test in ten different ways, it’s literally just CTRL+C, CTRL+V. Let’s see a mechanic do that.
Of course software is also limited by hardware capabilities but we can code whatever we want on that hardware as long as it fits within the provided specs.
Go fast and brake things!
The "re-run to reproduce" isn't even the most peculiar part of software engineering; it's "we don't look at what has been tried before".
In the OP story example, there's this part: "One time we added ventilation holes to reduce heat, but they were just big enough for wasps to nest in". In a ideal world, the hardware engineers are supposed to know to not have any holes larger than a few millimeters, and other such things. Whereas the software engineers are (yet) not supposed to know much of anything like that. The most prominent example I can think of is "remember to add an index to the database when adding a new type of query to the app", as load testing that would catch it tends not to be done on each and every release.
A software engineer, a hardware engineer and a department manager were on their way to a meeting in Switzerland. They were driving down a steep mountain road when suddenly the brakes on their car failed. The car careened almost out of control down the road, bouncing off the crash barriers, until it miraculously ground to a halt scraping along the mountainside.
The car's occupants, shaken but unhurt, now had a problem: they were stuck halfway down a mountain in a car with no brakes. What were they to do?
"I know," said the department manager, "Let's have a meeting, propose a Vision, formulate a Mission Statement, define some Goals and by a process of Continuous Improvement find a solution to the Critical Problems, and we can be on our way."
"No, no," said the hardware engineer, "That will take far too long, and besides, that method has never worked before. I've got my Swiss Army knife with me, and in no time at all I can strip down the car's braking system, isolate the fault, fix it and we can be on our way."
"Well," said the software engineer, "Before we do anything, I think we should push the car back up the road and see if it happens again."