are under-engineers just another word for Morlock?
Types of Engineers
31–40 of 82 posts
Re: Types of Engineers
#32Random thought:
>Software organizations tend to reward programmers who (a) write lots of code and (b) fix lots of bugs. The best way to get ahead in an organization like this is to check in lots of buggy code and fix it all, rather than taking the extra time to get it right in the first place.
What are HN's thoughts on a system that rewards developers that fix a lot of bugs, alongside rewarding devs that produce bug-free code?
Re: Types of Engineers
#33Sorry ahead of time for going slightly meta and off topic. I am a software engineer myself but... I find the fact that this blog refers to software engineering practices as if they apply to all engineering disciplines to be a little jarring and best and misleading at worst. I wouldn't expect a mechanical engineering blog to have an article "Types of Engineers" that only discusses mechanical engineering. I refuse to n…
I was a mechanical engineer for five years, now in software: The way programmers tend to default "engineer" to meaning "software engineer" bothers me sometimes too. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised by a mechanical engineering blog doing the same thing. We all focus on our little corners of the world, and if software has it worse than mechanical it's just because mechanical engineers are forced to work with…
Indeed people can be "serious" or sloppy with everything.
Yet, software engineering doesn't require a degree and no minimum bar on both depth and breadth of knowledge required.
The jobspecs for "senior web engineer" with 3 years of Stack Overflow copypasting experience are an example.
Re: Types of Engineers
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is exactly what is being said.
It's just unfortunate he's distracting from discussing the content of the post to make a pedantic point that recurs on HN ad nauseam despite fostering no interesting discussion.
It happens. As you said, it happens recurringly. Generalizations can be an issue for a lot of people in a variety of topics, and his comment outlines his hope/a reason against people continuing the trend of generalizing engineers. Even if it is just the title. There's nothing wrong with more specificity.
He even apologizes for going slightly meta and off-topic. If anything, complaining about this point distracts from post content and fosters even less interesting discussion.
Re: Types of Engineers
#35This reads like a horoscope. I can tut-tut at the over engineers and under engineers while considering myself just right.
Anyone to the left or right of me on the spectrum will also think they're just right and I'm one of the former or latter. This recursive confirmation bias then sends the article straight to the front page.
This is the most smug article I've read on here in a long time. Why can't we just be professionals?
Re: Types of Engineers
#36As an Under-Engineer, I enjoy writing code like this: for (i=0;i
There's nothing in this world quite like entering the 2th array item :P
Re: Types of Engineers
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just unfortunate he's distracting from discussing the content of the post to make a pedantic point that recurs on HN ad nauseam despite fostering no interesting discussion.
It happens. As you said, it happens recurringly. Generalizations can be an issue for a lot of people in a variety of topics, and his comment outlines his hope/a reason against people continuing the trend of generalizing engineers. Even if it is just the title. There's nothing wrong with more specificity. He even apologizes for going slightly meta and off-topic. If anything, complaining about this point distracts from…
If you're apologizing for being meta and off topic you could also just save your comment for when it's on topic.
Re: Types of Engineers
#38Re: Types of Engineers
#39This reads like a horoscope. I can tut-tut at the over engineers and under engineers while considering myself just right . Anyone to the left or right of me on the spectrum will also think they're just right and I'm one of the former or latter. This recursive confirmation bias then sends the article straight to the front page. This is the most smug article I've read on here in a long time. Why can't we just be profes…
If you haven't been in the industry long you'll realise that actual professionals (without quotes) are no more than 10% of the workforce.
Not saying the article isn't written by a "professional", but it's not like it's a solved problem, how to get engineers to behave.
Re: Types of Engineers
#40The old tongue in cheek classification of SW Engineers is something like
smart & eager, smart & lazy, stupid & lazy, stupid & eager
stupid & eager does the worst damage and smart & eager doesn't exist (;