Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#51

Post by uvaursi » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:22 PM UTC

imglorp wrote: post #16

This is closely related to why Sussman and Abelson stopped teaching SICP: it is not possible to engineer software any more because systems are too complicated to completely understand and abstractions hide too many behaviors. So now we do "programming by poking" to understand what the system does instead of making it correct by construction. http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/5335 We just tinker. That's all we can d…

I’ll stick my neck out and say SICP has never been relevant to me. I’ve tinkered from embedded, to OS, to databases, to desktop applications, drivers, compilers, web applications, and all sorts of shit inbetween when I’m not reversing some archaic binary compiled in a pre-standard C++. I’ve done both idiomatic programming in a language as well as applying idioms from other languages that I liked. I’ve turned C# into Lisp because it couldn’t do what I needed it to do. I read through ARM opcode docs while I’m daydreaming of writing Ruby.

When I looked at SICP I saw one thing: an introduction to “thinking about programming” for people who will have to re-learn everything and will maybe use a few things here and there. The fundamentals matter but the application is the “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face” phase of actual learning. There are much better ways to go about studying and learning and I found SICP lacking, among other course work that I think is taught backwards and makes it hard to reason and apply.

Read “Great Programmers” by Bram Cohen. The wisdom is there, but it’s lost on people.

Just my 2c.

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#52

Post by okaleniuk » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:22 PM UTC

hatsuseno wrote: post #10

How many centuries did it take for civil engineering, for example, to become the codified, standardized, and respected calling it is now? While I'm sure "software development" will leapfrog that span of time, but it's only been 75 years since the discipline was invented to begin with (Lovelace's work was more applied math than anything else, but the starting point is arguably between then and, let's say, FORTRAN?). T…

Well, yes, but after the 75 years, don't you think that "too young" argument is getting old? Nuclear energy, medical imaging, and the space part of aerospace are all younger than "software development". These are all mature industries highly codified, and they also all also encompass software development among other things. Could it be that software development isn't an engineering discipline at all but a supporting activity?

Writing isn't an engineering discipline. And all industries rely heavily on writing. Could it be that writing software is just writing for computers and as such could only by codified within another engineering discipline and not by its own?

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#53

Post by HPsquared » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #33

giantg2 wrote: post #7

Most of software isn't engineering, it's just building. It's like a lot of these custom car/motorcycle builders vs actual engineers designing for a major manufacturer. You are both building a product but one places a lot more rigor on the science, data, and testing behind the decisions. That doesn’t mean the custom builders don't build good stuff, just that you won't get answers to things like how much force a partic…

> Most of software isn't engineering, it's just building. Other way around. The difference between engineering and building is that building refers to the building of a component in isolation, while engineering is about the building an entire system through the combination of multiple components. Most software — and all software that is actually used — is a built system. > but one places a lot more rigor on the scien…

A house comprises many parts. A custom motorcycle has many parts. These things are designed and built to established practices, but in 99% of cases they aren't really "engineered" with calculations and formalised decision-making processes and the like.

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#54

Post by 1970-01-01 » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

IlikeKitties wrote: post #38

1970-01-01 wrote: post #21

I've always wondered why UFOs are only a USA phenomenon. Why doesn't China have these extraterrestrial biological remains? What about Russia? North Korea? Japan? Because it's a form of mass-hysteria. Just like the flat Earth crowd, they will continue to shovel the narrative and ignore scientific evidence.

>I've always wondered why UFOs are only a USA phenomenon It plain isn't and to claim that it is shows that you have done EXACTLY 0 research into the topic. This kind of bad faith engagement shows an utter lack of curiosity. UFOs are huge in South America within just seconds you can find hundreds of sightings and discussions about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varginha_UFO_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

This doesn't prove it's aliens. It does add to my mass-hysteria hypothesis. I want to see the biological remains firsthand in Zimbabwe, Japan, etc. I want to see the crater the UFO left on the ground. I want to see the craft. Where's the physical evidence? Not photos, actual dirt displaced, metal alloy, extraterrestrial biological remains, etc.

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#55

Post by throwaway838112 » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:24 PM UTC

apalmer wrote: post #12

This again? In general, Software Engineering is not engineering. It's not a technical issue, it's a 'software doesn't really kill people so government doesn't intervene in it'. In the case where the software is life and death it's generally developed in ways similar to 'real' engineering Fundamentally folks built building/structures without engineering, just so consistently caused death and destruction that govt step…

[dead]

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#56

Post by throwaway838112 » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #11

Some programmers are engineers, but not all programmers are engineers. A lot of us are plumbers, basically. We connect together things other people have engineered. There's nothing wrong with plumbing; it's an important, honorable profession. It's just a different thing than engineering. And I'm not saying that a really good programmer transforms into an engineer by virtue of being really productive, or smart, or wha…

[dead]

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#57

Post by layer8 » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

skeezyjefferson wrote: post #42

1970-01-01 wrote: post #31

One big caveat to this is formal methods. If we did formal methods for all production code, it would meet the highest definition for rigor and rest safely as a true engineering discipline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_methods

this covers only the most technical fields that already specify things rigorously. most people arent technical enough to even understand what a formal spec is, so how do you deal with them? insist they learn formal methods?

Most people aren’t software engineers, so it’s not clear why that should be a problem.

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#58

Post by 9rx » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:25 PM UTC

HPsquared wrote: post #53

9rx wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of software isn't engineering, it's just building. Other way around. The difference between engineering and building is that building refers to the building of a component in isolation, while engineering is about the building an entire system through the combination of multiple components. Most software — and all software that is actually used — is a built system. > but one places a lot more rigor on the scien…

A house comprises many parts. A custom motorcycle has many parts. These things are designed and built to established practices, but in 99% of cases they aren't really "engineered" with calculations and formalised decision-making processes and the like.

> A house comprises many parts. A custom motorcycle has many parts.

Hence why they are engineered. I suspect you mentioned houses because the people who build houses are often referred to as builders, but that is because the people working houses often only do work on a single component. The system as a whole is referred to as engineering, though.

> with calculations and formalised decision-making processes and the like.

You too seem to be confusing "engineering" with "professional engineering". While societies of professional engineers would like people to think that engineering is defined by mathematical and scientific rigour, that's not how anyone actually uses the term in practice. The "software engineering" label wouldn't exist if they did.

Re: Is Software the UFOlogy of Engineering Disciplines?

#59

Post by sota_pop » Fri, Nov 07, 2025, 2:26 PM UTC

Engineer is to scientist as builder is to engineer.

Scientists take reality observations and make theories/models/principles. Engineers take scientific principles and make technological designs. Builders take available technologies and make a product/object/_thing_.

In each level, understanding how your inputs work defines the minimum criteria of success, but those who take the time to understand the “why” are largely considered “the good ones”.

And the rest is turtles all the way down.