[amazing_jose]

Humans in advanced production lines are "actuators". They are not there to think, but to replace an hypothetical machine that it's not possible to build yet. We have those magical machines in software, we call them compilers, interpreters, operative systems, file systems, etc.

I still have memories of my pass by Uni and how a Software Engineering professor constantly refered to programmers/developers as "coders" or "monkeys". He never stopped of repeating to us, day after day, that we shouldn't program ever. Our job as engineers was to plan, design, assess and manage those "monkeys".

More than 15 years of professional career later, my initial suspicion have been confirmed one time after another: those professors from Uni need a good deal of fresh air and to get in touch with the reality, instead of spend the day pontificating like celibate catholic priests about what you can and cannot do in your bedroom.

I know that many people here love Dijkstra and people like him, and even enjoy to feel their intellectual whipe in their mind, reading their essays and feeling bad about themselves as the essays repeat constantly how that everything is wrong and broken in the software profession.

For those people, I suggest to read "To Engineer is Human" by Petrosky and learn about how real engineers really work.

[krschultz]

> Humans in advanced production lines are "actuators". They are not there to think, but to replace an hypothetical machine that it's not possible to build yet. We have those magical machines in software, we call them compilers, interpreters, operative systems, file systems, etc.

Unfortunately this view of people that work in manufacturing is pervasive, but it is also incredibly naive. That view is essentially the reason why American car companies (along with many other industries) got their clocks cleaned by the Japanese car companies over the last 3 decades. I've been involved in a lot of companies where we worked really hard to correct that mentality and the results were always obviously positive, but incredibly difficult to achieve. Engineers just love to look down their noses at everyone else.

There is nothing worse than some new kid that just graduated with a BS in engineering pretending like he's smarter than a guy that has been building the product we're designing for 30 years. Unfortunately some people never grow beyond the 'new kid' stage.

[amazing_jose]

I don't get your point.

My comment tried (possibly not very clearly) to talk about the differences between the other engineerings and software. People keep thinking that programmers are like factory employees. And that's so wrong. Each engineering endeavour is different. In software, our factory workers, are the tools that do the job. What in other places is designing in software is just programming. In my view (and I'm not alone in that) people keep applying the manufacturing metaphor to software for the wrong reasons.

In construction, the distance between design and implementation is so huge, that the construction workers save or doom construction projects all the time. Spend some time in a big construction site, in their meetings and you will discover why those projects take so long to finish. Hence, they are important because what the designer design is just an specification for the project, it's a map not the territory. An ideal brick in a CAD program is not a brick. Your perfect design for the AirCon machine in that room got destroyed by an in place decision by a worker of changing the wiring in a wall, ignoring the plan. Through tremendous effort during centuries construction has accumulated more or less accurate models for bricks, but the workers do so many things that the architects doesn't know how to do that the distance persist, and my times just ignore them.

In manufacturing, you have the Ford model of car manufacturing. It has being employed in nearly every single factory in the world. Yes, the Japanese empowered their employees more than in other countries but hey, they took note and introduced some of the practices. As of today American companies are as competitive as the Japanese ones without all the mumbo jumbo and black zen magic.

My point here is that each engineering is different. Different factors forced us to discover what work for them and what doesn't. That knowledge was accumulated in the industry and depending on the engineering, the feedback loop from the industry into the University could vary a lot. In software, the distance between the two is huge, due to the lack of transparency and secretism that most software companies exhibit.

[kpil]

I guess that treating factory workers as "code monkeys" is also wrong :-)

I'd like to work in a flat(ish) meritocracy. Maybe I have to start my own company...

[analog31]

Ironically, the people above the engineers consider the engineers to be monkeys too, and so on up the line.

[joosters]

If you treat people working on the production line as mere automatons, human robots, you're a fool.

Here's a good article explaining how Toyota make use of workers to develop new ways of building and improving construction:

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/04/07/business/gods-ed...