Except for when it is, the constraints of software engineers has always been bound to the constraints of Classic Computing, but over the years we've abstracted that away to the point of where many in the field may not even realize it.
"Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
21–30 of 62 posts
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engineering is a regulated term, afaik that’s what underlies the debate, it’s not about whether English has changed.
In my country (France), being an engineer ( ingénieur , in French) is regulated but tied to a particular degree (which must be approved by the Commission des titres d'ingénieur ), and as such I am legally a software engineer .
Same here in Poland. I believe the equivalent term in English is "Bachelor of Engineering". Four years instead of the regular three to obtain a typical bachelor's degree.
I studied at a technical university at its faculty of electrical engineering, but those who study at a "normal" university indeed go through the usual three years and are not engineers.
I guess the main difference is that I learned about analog circuits, semiconductors and all that, while those other guys didn't.
I don't have any special professional certificates, though I could optionally enroll on a course allowing me to work with voltages up to 1000V.
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#23Fine, but then what am I? I'm certainly not a scientist. And calling me a "programmer" is like calling an accountant a "calculator".
I design solutions to computational problems. I also happen to implement them a lot of the time, because code was trivial to implement even before LLMs. What does that make me if not an engineer? I'm open to suggestions.
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#24Crypto is not the OG cryptography! GenAI is not the OG AI! Language is for us, not the other way around. It's common usage changes.
Engineering is a regulated term, afaik that’s what underlies the debate, it’s not about whether English has changed.
Ok, then there is regulated engineering and unregulated engineering. If you are doing engineering and it's not regulated (for many different reasons) it does not make it any less engineering. Animals do engineering, insects go engineering, it is based on science (empirical), whether they know it or not.
We need to stop redefining terms.
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#25Fine, but then what am I? I'm certainly not a scientist. And calling me a "programmer" is like calling an accountant a "calculator". I design solutions to computational problems. I also happen to implement them a lot of the time, because code was trivial to implement even before LLMs. What does that make me if not an engineer? I'm open to suggestions.
I just work here. The label is for everyone else :)
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#26Skimmed through, and it sort of confirms my own experience: when a problem isn't approached with an engineering mindset, the resulting work also doesn't qualify as engineering.
The article seems to make some fairly confusing statements. Why is the bar higher for software engineering, than that of civil engineering otherwise? Statements such as:
> "there is no objective reality inside software"
> "if there are many solutions to the same problem, which one is "better"?"
Is the exact same subjective goal that a objective engineering constraint has in any other engineering field. There are many ways to design and build a bridge, but the engineering aspect of it needs to model reality and account for it in such a way that the bridge to build conforms to said requirements, in a provable way. That's why engineers can be held responsible when mistakes are made.
Software Engineering can be done in the same way. This, however, depends entirely on the culture. My first decade in the field, I was fortunate to only be exposed to en environment and culture that developed software in a provably correct way, or at the very least, aspired to. The latter decade, not so fortunate. With the advent of generative AI, it's become far worse. The challenge is to carve out enough space outside the purview of "management" that wants problems solved with particular tools, regardless of applicability to said problems, and it's becoming insurmountable. Signal to noise disappearing. The idea of buying land and tending to a farm, evermore appealing.
I wonder if the author perhaps has not worked on software that comes with actual engineering constraints. There are plenty of software systems where , people die.
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#27Not even “engineering” is engineering. It’s equal parts art, craft, and science. And I say that as a classically trained engineer turned software engineer. Every engineering design is a compromise - it can be light, or easy to make, or robust, or cheap, or anything else driven by requirements. There is no such thing as an optimal design unless you pin the requirements down really tight - and this is where the art part comes from.
With “classic” engineering at least you have the immutable laws of physics to judge your work, but with software we have no such luck - software is infinitely pliable in ways equivalent to bending the laws of physics in classical engineering. Your bridge may not be sound at one Earth gravity, or your software might not work reliably with a gigabyte of memory, but it’s like we can place your bridge under half G by giving the software twice as much memory. And we can do all that after building our “bridges”.
I would even suggest software engineering can also be described as “applied poetry”, where we write precise prose designed to elicit specific responses from machines, but I guess that analogy was taken by “prompt engineering”, which feels like “applied sorcery”.
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#28Fine, but then what am I? I'm certainly not a scientist. And calling me a "programmer" is like calling an accountant a "calculator". I design solutions to computational problems. I also happen to implement them a lot of the time, because code was trivial to implement even before LLMs. What does that make me if not an engineer? I'm open to suggestions.
Software developer?
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#29>An engineer's model must be tightly bound to the laws of physics and chemistry. Anything that exists in reality and is observable by definition is tightly bound by the laws of physics and chemistry. Software is too. >Software is a lot like math, Probably referring to computer science. Computer science is neither about computers nor is it a science. It is a math. Software is like math but applied. >The only limitatio…
> > An engineer's model must be tightly bound to the laws of physics and chemistry.
> Anything that exists in reality and is observable by definition is tightly bound by the laws of physics and chemistry. Software is too.
No. Software is only loosely bound by physics and chemistry. Sure, the bounds exist - they're real - but most software, most of the time, does not bump into them much at all.
But
> > An engineer's model must be tightly bound to the laws of physics and chemistry.
is also wrong. This is using a pre-software definition of engineering to try to define software engineering. It would be like trying to use a pre-Faraday definition of physics to define microwave engineering.
Re: "Software Engineering" Is Not Engineering (2005)
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engineering is a regulated term, afaik that’s what underlies the debate, it’s not about whether English has changed.
Engineering is not a regulated term everywhere.
In the US, professional licensure is left to the states, and most states have some form of licensing for engineers along with reciprocity for transferring a license from one state to another. Commonly, engineers have an "industrial exemption" if they work for a company that makes a product rather than offering engineering services directly to the public (such as a civil or structural engineer might do).
I've held an "engineer" title at my day job from time to time, though I'm not an engineer and have no engineering degree. Only a couple of engineers at my work site have licenses. On the other hand, my brother in law was a nuclear engineer, and all of the engineers at the power plant were licensed.
One thing you'll notice is that small companies that do contract or consulting work will call themselves "research" or "technology" rather than using the E word on their web page.