[Rury]

>When you just slap things together and see if they work - are you really engineering?

Why not? That's basically what testing is. Which was one of the attributes you attributed to "Engineer" >formal testing

>I think we often cross "research and development" with "engineering"

My general take:

Scientists primarily focus on learning and proving new knowledge & ideas. (i.e. they research)

Engineers focus in using proven knowledge and applying it to design and create things or solve problems. When things are not perfectly certain, they can prototype and do tests similar to how scientists do experiments (e.g. aerodynamics in wind tunnels). (i.e. development)

[Alupis]

Good points, but usually when we talk about testing in the realm of engineering, it's a means of verifying something is within the bounds it was designed for... not just to see what happens.

We don't run test suites on our software to see what it does. We run test suites to validate it operates as it is supposed to.

I think the way you described testing is more in line with tinkering and research rather than engineering. It's experimentation, not testing.

When the outcome is unknown and unreliably unpredictable, it's research (tinkering). When it's predictable and has a known, repeatable outcome, it's engineering.

[Rury]

>Good points, but usually when we talk about testing in the realm of engineering, it's a means of verifying something is within the bounds it was designed for... not just to see what happens.

Yeah that's fair.

I had originally skimmed the article, but after re-reading it the author apparently admits they didn't put any careful thought into what they made. No real goal. Just slapped stuff together so to speak. Which I'd agree doesn't quite sit as engineering to me...