Re:You are never taught how to build quality software
by imetatroll on Friday December 08, 2023 @07:05PM
(#38576672)
The article is about delivering a complete, working project "on time". I have a neighbor whose home is being renovated and it is already 2x the time the contractor originally quoted.
Of course it is easier for a developer to walk away from something incomplete than an architect and the contractors involved in a physical project, but still, I hardly think that there is really much difference in terms of timelines.
Re:You are never taught how to build quality software
by ska on Friday December 08, 2023 @07:21PM
(#38576794)
FWIW in my experience delays in e.g. home renos (or for that matter larger scale projects) are mostly for reasons unrelated to the engineering. In software projects, it's probably the #1 reason (i.e. we didn't know how to do it when we started).
Software is still absolutely king for number of large scale projects that just never ship, or ship but never work.
Re:You are never taught how to build quality software
by kaba0 on Saturday December 09, 2023 @03:48AM
(#38579989)
> To the contrary, it's nearly canonical. Most of the problems pointed out in the 70s (mythical man month) have still not been resolved, 50 years later.
Even with all of those applied, we wouldn’t be magically better. Complexity is simply unbounded. It’s almost impossible to reason about parallel code with shared mutable state.
To the contrary, it's nearly canonical. Most of the problems pointed out in the 70s (mythical man month) have still not been resolved, 50 years later.
>you wouldn't believe how hard it
Oh, I'd believe it (I've designed and built similar things, and had colleagues in CFD).
But you are definitely cherry picking here. The problem with CFD is we don't understand the fluid dynamics part very well; turbulence is a big unsolved problem still, though we have been generating better techniques. This is so true that in an undergraduate physics degree, there is usually a point where they say something like: "now that you think you know how lots of things work, let's introduce turbulence"
But a lot of mechanical engineering and the underlying physics and materials science is actually pretty well understood, to the degree that we can be much more predictive about the trade offs than typically is possible in software. Same goes for electrical, civil, and chem. Each of them have areas of fuzziness, but also a pretty solid core.