[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.

[liketochill]

As an end user of software I don’t have SLAs or warranties, just EULAs that guarantee nothing and the ground constantly shifting underneath me with updates that take away features or turn me in to a subscription revenue stream as some functionality is unnecessarily moved to the cloud.

I am sure there is software created by an engineering process by software engineers, but it is probably less visible to me in my day to day computing. The effort you detailed that is required to make sure a chip works is a good one.

And I agree electrical and computer engineering are disciplines.