111–120 of 210 posts
Programming is still a craft, not engineering, or manufacturing. A software house should work like bespoke tailoring, or fine cabinetry, or glass blowing. There's still no better training for programming than the equivalent of master/journeyman/apprentice. Apologies for the gender specific terms, but they are specific to how tradespeople operated from medieval times. The worst thing to ever happen to the practice of…
Programming is still a craft, not engineering, or manufacturing. A software house should work like bespoke tailoring, or fine cabinetry, or glass blowing. There's still no better training for programming than the equivalent of master/journeyman/apprentice. Apologies for the gender specific terms, but they are specific to how tradespeople operated from medieval times. The worst thing to ever happen to the practice of…
>There's still no better training for programming than the equivalent of master/journeyman/apprentice. This is inseparable from the fact that programming is still a domain dominated by white males from upper middle-class families (and immigrants from countries with functional, non-boondoggle professional training and/or demoscene). DEI as a rainbow-wash goes away when organic mentorship of black kids and young women…
And if we stop with the racism, are you sure it's not the programming that made these guys upper middle class?
Programming is still a craft, not engineering, or manufacturing. A software house should work like bespoke tailoring, or fine cabinetry, or glass blowing. There's still no better training for programming than the equivalent of master/journeyman/apprentice. Apologies for the gender specific terms, but they are specific to how tradespeople operated from medieval times. The worst thing to ever happen to the practice of…
Even if it's the way I learnt, it's just one way to learn.
I'm in software but my background is electronics engineering. But I can say electronics can be a craft (just build some stuff), or engineering (all the way to knowledge of modern physics, telecommunications, semiconductors design), or manufacturing (build some stuff at scale).
Same applies to programming. I've known quite a few people with computer science backgrounds. Some would have a level of comprehension and ability that's just unachievable by just practicing programming as a craft, and some others can determine any algorithm Big O notation at first glance but can't write 5 lines of code if their life depends on it.
Consider the evolution of human weapons. It was very easy to make a crude throwing spear (break off a branch and sharpen the wooden tip against a rock) but a ton of strength and precision was necessary to take down a target with it.
It took a while to figure out how to make a decent bow, but once invented it spread all over the world because momentum could be imparted to the arrow instantaneously when releasing the string. Strength was still required to hold the bow at full tension; this requirement was eliminated with the crossbow. As a tradeoff, the crossbow required more significant manufacturing expertise and economies of scale, particularly with regard to precise metal locking mechanisms.
The evolution continues with guns replacing crossbows, tanks replacing horses, and ending with nuclear weapons. Each technological development requires a much greater level of manufacturing organization, and in turn bestows more power on an unskilled user. The resulting economies of scale are why only a small set of huge states are militarily relevant today, and why the idea of nomad bands posing a threat suddenly seems laughable (whereas it was a dominant worry for civilized society up until a few hundred years ago).
It is natural to glorify the work of the artisan whose disorganized but brilliant insight has not yet been commoditized. But for better or worse, progress usually takes the form of painstakingly systematizing those insights, detail by detail, until they are reproducible and robust, so that a broader range of people can consistently churn out similarly good work. It is this systematization and rationalization of the manufacturing process that really brings quality of life improvements to large numbers of people. It is also what can seem to take the magic out of the original insight, eg as Edison’s discovery of electricity becomes as mundane as flipping on a light switch. Progress happens in the transition from magic to technology.
Thinking about software as a factory is also possible and might be useful. But not everything fits into that analogy, for instance, when you think about integrations in the product or when it is a service rather than an app. Factory implies something is being made but software is not the end result in many cases but is an enabler in itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not following what your point is. Would there be a way to make everyone expendable faster is it wasn't just white entitled dudes?
>I'm not following what your point is. I'm not sure how I could be clearer. >Would there be a way to make everyone expendable faster is it wasn't just white entitled dudes? You might want to check this for errors.
Programming is still a craft, not engineering, or manufacturing. A software house should work like bespoke tailoring, or fine cabinetry, or glass blowing. There's still no better training for programming than the equivalent of master/journeyman/apprentice. Apologies for the gender specific terms, but they are specific to how tradespeople operated from medieval times. The worst thing to ever happen to the practice of…
> Programming is still a craft, not engineering, or manufacturing. Programming can be engineering if you know how to do it. Engineering is, in a nutshell, a set of principles you learn and apply, and never deviate from , in work and life . Engineers always deliver the highest quality. Craftspersons do not know these engineering principles, or they disregard them. They invariably deliver faster than engineers, and the…
Engineers deliver a cheaper product that still meets some known set of requirements with whatever safety margin.
The quality is as good as the requirements dictate.
A big reason why software is largely not engineering is because nobody knows wtf the requirements actually are, and the dependency stack is unknowably large
Delightful.
Programming is still a craft, not engineering, or manufacturing. A software house should work like bespoke tailoring, or fine cabinetry, or glass blowing. There's still no better training for programming than the equivalent of master/journeyman/apprentice. Apologies for the gender specific terms, but they are specific to how tradespeople operated from medieval times. The worst thing to ever happen to the practice of…