[j1elo]

In Civil Engineering it would seem crazy that someone changes their mind and decides that the Tower they had requested, obtained designs for, budgeted tens or hundreds of people's work, and planned for, now suddenly must be a Bridge. They themselves would discard the idea due to how absurdly expensive would be to just basically start from scratch. All that money and resources would be basically wasted.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad thing that the same thing happens, to a lesser extent, in Software Engineering. Say bye to stupid last minute changes caused by the fact that they are not perceived as expensive, and all the bad incentives it creates in the people writing that software.

[tralarpa]

Software engineering is still very far from engineering. It's a young field and everything is still very experimental. Its practitioners are still debating whether a hammer or a saw is the best tool for inserting a screw, and whether to insert the head first or the tip first. Don't forget that the art of building bridges has a head start of several thousand years :)

[bob33212]

Flexibility and Standardization is a tradeoff and how useful each one is depends on the context.

Should you put a project on hold if you only have 1/2 inch nails and the plans ask for 3/4 inch nails? I don't know, are you building a nuclear reactor or a decorative birdhouse?

[test_epsilon]

No it's not. Engineering does not mean proving a design against a model, although that can be part of engineering (and software has formal proving methods, I might add).

Physical engineering projects are not mathematically proven either. They are verified against some accepted set of tests using models that use various empirically measured properties for materials and the world around the project as proxies for how this will do, and include various factors like 1-in-N year events and some acceptable error margin or chance of failure.

In something like microprocessor design, the physical design and manufacturing of course can be wildly variable and difficult to characterize (as Intel has recently been finding out -- even on a very nicely running process line, variations can result in many devices not working at all, and those that do can have variations of tens of percent in major performance metrics (frequency, power consumption).

Go up a level to digital logic design. Like software there are formal methods for proving logic, but they are absolutely not used to "prove" the entire digital logic part of a CPU. That is much more like software than you might think, thousands of bugs get found and fixed. Many bugs (from performance to correctness) can even get found and after a chip has come back from the factory. They go through intensive verification cycles, and even then it's not at all uncommon for bugs to escape. Many "errata" are just noted and you live with them, some necessitate varying degrees of crippling performance or features (spectre, meltdown, transactional memory, etc). And some actually require new revisions of the product when the errors can't be corrected in firmware.

The only real difference between software and logic design is the cost of "recompiling" means they spend vast efforts with many angles and layers of ways to modify the behavior of a device after it is manufactured. This isn't something you can see, but there are thousands and thousands of dials and switches that can be set to change behaviour, from very low level (oops this bit of logic has a clock-gating bug, we need to flip the switch to disable clock gating for this particular group of gates it will cost 0.01mW of dynamic power), through logical behavior of various algorithms and structures in the chip, right up to higher level big hammers like microcode and micro traps (oops we didn't implement this instruction correctly, switch it to trap to microcode and we'll write a handler for it at a cost of 1% performance).

Is electrical engineering, microprocessor design, circuit design considered to be "not engineering"? Not by many.

Engineering is about applying structured methods to create something that solves problem. Software in some areas is ahead of the game here, using advanced version control tools and methodologies, continuous integration, although digital logic design has been starting to cotton on.

[liketochill]

Engineering is about the application of science, about safeguarding the public welfare, the duty owed to your clients, and through liability standing behind the work that an engineer does. The modern software industry doesn’t fit that pattern, eula’s shirk all responsibility and dark patterns are applied to trick users.

Until people writing software are taking ethics courses and are part of a professional organization to which they are accountable for being held to some code, there is no software engineering.

[test_epsilon]

You didn't really address what I wrote though.

And I disagree, it does fit the pattern which is what my whole rant was about. You seem to have a romanticized idea of what "real" engineers do as well. A _lot_ of it involves software, a lot of it is prototyping and finding bugs and hacking around them and refining.

If you don't like the digital electrical engineering because it's too close to software for you, try mechanical engineering in automobiles. If you've spent much time around cars, you'll know that they have a lot of quirks like this where it's obvious a problem has been found and fixed. For example an engine of a particular vintage might be known to be prone to head cracking, then a few years later they might come out with another engine with a lot of the same part numbers but revised head design or material.

The engineers who designed it were not gazing at idealized otto cycle equations or out polling the public about its welfare, and the company behind it was doing its level best to play down the problem and coming up with ways their dealers could try to nurse cars through their warranty periods.

[liketochill]

But there is a warranty.

I think what a lot of computer programming goes on by people who call themselves software engineers but don’t follow engineering methods and ethics, such as prototyping, and having warranties and liability for the work.

I have known some old school engineers who were inspiring in their depth of knowledge, ability to do research and solve new problems, and management of customer and employee relationships, and definitely that has colored my view of what a professional engineer should be.

[test_epsilon]

So even if we ignore for a minute that software can have warranties... having a warranty? Really? That's what you're going try to say means software development is not an engineering discipline? You could have just accepted my arguments with some grace. You don't expect me to dignify this with a response surely.

[hluska]

This is some absolutely amazing writing. Good heavens, your line about debating whether a hammer or a saw is the right tool for inserting a screw?? Beautiful!!

Do you blog? If so, I’d love to read more of you. If not, again, this is some seriously good writing. Big, end of a long drunken night “I really love you man, woman or whatever” ups!!!

[toast0]

Building construction is full of last minute changes too, it's just that the scope is usually more limited. But a lot of that also boils down to the cost to make changes.

You better get the foundation of your 100 story tower right, because it's a big, costly pain to fix it later. When update costs and consequences of errors are similarly high in software, you see real effort spent on getting it right before shipping.

When costs to update are low and costs from error are low, less effort is spent on getting it right first.

Personally, I've rarely seen a specification in my career, let alone anything rigorous enough to write a formal specification from. And, even if there were a rigorous specification, everything is subject to redesign at any moment. Not a whole lot of value in formal methods in that kind of environment. You don't tend to get a structural engineer to certify your plans for an overnight camp in a two-person tent.

[galangalalgol]

I've seen plenty of specifications, and they were almost all wrong to a signiy degree. We didn't even know what was possible much less which algorithm was right until we tried it to see. We rewrote it three times using previous iterations only as copy-paste fodder before we liked how it handled real inputs. Then we updated the specification. I like this method.

[colordrops]

It would be a bad thing though. The fact that software is changed with so little effort is a feature and a positive aspect. The only thing that should factor into whether a more rigorous approach should be taken is the use case.

[codeulike]

Say bye to stupid last minute changes ...

Bridges stay the same, software changes all the time and _needs_ to change all the time because the business (or whatever) domain that the software is in is also constantly changing. The reason the 'waterfall' method of "gather requirements, design, build, test" fails so often is that the requirements gathered at the start are often out of date by the time you get to the test stage. Or, the users that gave the requirements actually meant something slightly different and that only becomes apparent once the software is infront of them for usertesting.

[bluGill]

> reason the 'waterfall' method of "gather requirements, design, build, test" fails so often is that the requirements gathered at the start are often out of date by the time you get to the test stage.

True, but there is no excuse for that anymore. Very little software is really new anymore, so we should have a good handle on requirements by now. (I don't either )

[hwayne]

Bridges change all the time too!

[kinjba11]

What do you mean by 'bridges change all the time too'? Some of the oldest bridges in the world were built nearly 2000 years ago. That's zero change besides basic upkeep.

What is the oldest unchanging software project you can think of? Typical software projects have a constant accrual of features. Some of the older projects like the Linux kernel are more like a mansion that keeps getting more rooms while others are demolished. Not exactly something that happens to a bridge.

[maest]

> stupid last minute changes

Those are a feature of Software Engineering, as opposed to Civil Engineering.

If there was a cheap way to turn Towers into Bridges (and the cost of failure was comparable to that of an app having an outage), our infrastructure would look a lot different.

I know quickly changing requirements are a pain for those who have to do the implementation, but, commercially, that flexibility has significant value.

[bluGill]

Everything you can do in software someone could do with a few ASICs. software is several orders of magnitude cheaper, and that is before you account for hhihiwhow eeeasy it is to change.