Why writing software is not like engineering (2008)

I would say that plans sufficiently specific to be done by any supplier and ability to switch supplier would be equivalent to final code and the final step should be done by using appropriate frameworks instead of human contractors. Any repetetive software process with precise specification should be automated with better tools or other higher level abstractions. One reason it's not done more for physical engineering is that the robots or machines would be impractically complicated or expensive or other physical limitations. But even then manaual machining is increasingly getting replaced by CNCs and houses built from bigger prefabricated components. You might choose not having a house made from prefabricated blocks due to aesthetic reasons but in software hardly anyone except small fraction of programmers will complain about electron or too many levels of abstraction under the hood.

There is a major difference between engineering and software development: liability.

If a civil engineer designs a bridge, and it crashes and people die due to a design flaw, he or she can be sued, and even put in jail.

On the other hand, software comes with a license that explicitly makes its authors not liable for design flaws.

When was the last time you had to agree to an end user license agreement before crossing a bridge?

The difference is, one is not a science, and the other is not engineering. ;-)

There has always been a dilemma about what to do with bright young people who want to become computer programmers, but who also want to get a college degree.

My mom taught a programming course at a satellite campus of a state university in the 80s. The course was listed in the computer science department, but it was basically Programming 101. Her students were mostly grown-ups. Her students didn't face the dilemma because they already had college degrees, or they didn't. They were getting programming jobs after one year in the course.

My mom's advice to me was that programming was too easy to justify 4 years of college level training, and that I should major in something "real" to use her words. (She has a masters in chemistry). But actually her idea was to use college as a way to build up domain knowledge that could add value on top of programming skill. She thought there would be a need to be able to differentiate myself from the likely flood of people who were taking the 1 year course and getting programming jobs.

This post would come close to trolling if it weren't for the fact that there remain ongoing debates to this day, even in HN threads, about the merit and need for college level training to become a programmer. I'm not the only person wondering about this -- it's a real and hard problem. I actually like the idea of a decent career path for someone who is not interested or cut out to succeed in the college environment, even though I thrived in that environment myself.

It is engineering. We do all the same things engineers in other fields do. It’s a recognized discipline by many licensing organizations around the world. It’s engineering and there’s no need to wring our hands about it.

It might also be instructive to compare with medicine or law. These practitioners are also liable for their actions, have to be licensed by a professional organization, and can have their credentials revoked in the event of gross incompetence. Software designers have none of these burdens.