[ozim]

This is great. People romanticize construction, mechanical and other engineering like there would be no failures in those disciplines. Buildings collapse, machines break down in unforeseen circumstances. My pet theory is that in software it is just a lot easier to create a lot of stuff, so it is also a lot easier to create issues.

You can add that in eastern Europe you can get engineering degree which is "technical bachelor" from technical university, so I am software engineer as it is printed in my diploma.

[gjulianm]

It's not about the failures, it's about the modes of failure. I assume that the modes of failure of a bridge, or of a building, are pretty well understood.

Software has far more distinct pieces than any other product you can find anywhere (maybe the human body?) so it's impossible to completely check the modes of failure. I was just reading before about a hardware corruption bug due to a kernel feature [1] and it's hard to imagine the same chain reaction in other engineering areas.

In software it's also really hard to model behavior. In engineering you'll get tolerances, strength and other features of the pieces you use. In software, you can't even benchmark something and expect the same benchmark to translate to a different computer.

1: https://lwn.net/Articles/304105/

[rwoerz]

Yes, software is immaterial and thus not constrained by laws of physic (except speed of light). It is comparably easy to change but also comparably hard to specify and model in advance.