Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

"Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

geocities.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#61

Post by chollida1 »

polshaw wrote: post #7

As someone with an engineering degree, it does irk me to constantly hear programmers referred to around these quarters as 'engineers', it's extremely introspective, and IMO a little disrespectful. Similarly to the 'are you technical?' thing, why is there such an aversion to the term programmer or software developer? I have no problem with the term 'software engineers', as i do seem some parallels, and it is clear wha…

I think most of the people replying to your comment miss the biggest issue. In alot of countries the title engineer is a protected title.

It's alot like doctor or lawyer, you technically can't call your self one unless you have a professional certification from the applicable engineering society.

I know when I graduated with an engineering degree in Canada you couldn't call your self an engineer until you were a PE.

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#62

Post by snowwindwaves »

OlivierLi wrote: post #36
jiggy2011 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean that in order to charge money for any programming work at all (even VBA) you have to have an accredited qualification, or can you do so but not call yourself a software "engineer"?

No it doesn't. But the term Engineer is protected. You cannot legally call yourself an Engineer if you don't have the degree.

I am not able to call myself an engineer unless I am a professional engineer, until then I am an 'engineer in training' EIT. I think engineers should come up with a better term for this 4 year period before they can become professionals.

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#63

Post by m0skit0 »

I almost do not agree with anything you say in this article, and I'm not entering the details since most of them has already been commented here, but just a point I feel like missing: software IS bound to laws of physics and chemistry, because it runs on hardware, which is bound to such laws. Most of the time, when engineering software (which is NOT the same as coding/programming) you must take into account the hardware limitations, and on last instance, test that software on some hardware and do optimizations where needed.

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#65

Post by nialo »

foldingstock wrote: post #4

"But we don't have this in software designs for the most part. We have the requirements, such as what the input and output looks like and the run-time constraints which dictate the maximum time a given operation is allowed to take. But there is much in-between these that is elusive to objective metrics. " I pretty much stopped reading here. Elusive to objective metrics? I agree that you can't measure a program like y…

The reason people say silly things like this is that "software design" is used for slightly the wrong thing. What is called a "design" in software is much closer to a relatively low level specification in physical manufacturing, while a completed mechanical design can just be handed to a factory for production, and is much closer to source code for software.

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#66

Post by barik »

padobson wrote: post #19

So, building a bridge is an engineering endeavor. Does this mean that drawing blueprints for the bridge is not engineering? What about working a crane? Laying brick? Sealing pavement? Sweeping the bridge? Could you say that an AWS datacenter is not a feat of engineering? Certainly writing the software that powers it is as important as any other discipline, and every piece of its execution has definable metrics to mea…

"Does this mean that drawing blueprints for the bridge is not engineering? What about working a crane? Laying brick? Sealing pavement? Sweeping the bridge?"

Yes. None of these items, strictly speaking, qualify as Engineering work for purposes of licensing. If you are applying for an Engineering license, you will need to subtract these hours from your Engineering experience, and if a large portion of your day-to-day work consists of these tasks, then it may take you significantly longer to obtain your license.

It took me six years rather than the usual four to get my license as a result. Lunch doesn't count. Facebook doesn't count. Filling out expense reports doesn't count. Re-filling the paper in the printer doesn't count. Soldering doesn't count. There are a large amount of necessary non-Engineering distractions in any career, and none of these count.

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#67

Post by dev1n »

dandrews wrote: post #31
polshaw wrote: post #7

As someone with an engineering degree, it does irk me to constantly hear programmers referred to around these quarters as 'engineers', it's extremely introspective, and IMO a little disrespectful. Similarly to the 'are you technical?' thing, why is there such an aversion to the term programmer or software developer? I have no problem with the term 'software engineers', as i do seem some parallels, and it is clear wha…

Agreed about the "engineer" label. My acquaintances at university were engineering students, and they would themselves correct me if I called them engineers - that requires licensure. (They're not even "engineers in training" until they've passed that monster FE.) You betcha, PEs are justifiably proud of the title. We have sysadmins around here who call themselves "Microsoft system engineers". It bugs me, but title i…

This is akin to a philosophy professor walking into a hospital and saying "I'm a doctor."

The actuality; the professor is correct. The circumstances of the situation just make for misunderstanding and an apparent disrespect for the medical doctors walking around, from the perspective of the medical doctors.

edit: changed the wording

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#68

Post by erichocean »

thomseddon wrote: post #60
padobson wrote: post #19

So, building a bridge is an engineering endeavor. Does this mean that drawing blueprints for the bridge is not engineering? What about working a crane? Laying brick? Sealing pavement? Sweeping the bridge? Could you say that an AWS datacenter is not a feat of engineering? Certainly writing the software that powers it is as important as any other discipline, and every piece of its execution has definable metrics to mea…

Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with the point you are working towards, I don't follow your pedantic breakdowns of various endeavors. "Drawing" the blueprints would be done by a draftsman not necessarily an engineer, working a crane is a skilled job done by crane operators (again not necessarily engineers), and brick laying/pavement sealing/bridge sweeping is again not necessarily done by an engineer. In building…

I would argue that if a janitor was to optimise his/her route by counting steps, this is not a technical problem and so doesn't make him an engineer.

Doing so is called "industrial engineering".

Re: "Computer Science" is Not Science and "Software Engineering" is Not Engineering

#70

Post by SeanLuke »

betawolf33 wrote: post #39

The contention that Computer Science is not a science because on opening a CS textbook you get confronted with a number of mathematical concepts seems a fairly ridiculous one. The same argument could be made to say that Physics is not a science, after all. The problem is that there's a conflation in most people's minds of the terms 'computer science' and 'programming'. Computer Science courses teach you how to progra…

I think that this is basically saying "Computer Science is science because it uses science." But Electrical Engineering uses just as much scientific method in its research papers as CS does. Does this make EE a scientific field?

To my mind, every engineering field has researchers who use the scientific method every day to produce stuff for the engineers to use. The field is not defined by those researchers -- it's defined by the users (engineers). EE researchers often publish stuff based on the scientific method, or by proof, but the end product is meant to be used by engineers. CS researchers often publish stuff based on the scientific method, or by proof, but the end product is meant to be used by ... well, we call the "programmers". But they're engineers of software.

Post reply on HN