[mnau]

We are not engineers. We are craftsmen, instead of working with wood, we work with code. What most customers want is an equivalent of "I need a chair, it should look roughly like this."

If they want blueprints and documentation (e.g. maximum possible load and other limits), we can supply (and do supply, e.g. in pharma or medicine), but it will cost them quite a lot more. By the order of magnitude. Most customers prefer cobbled up solution that is cheap and works. That's on them.

Edit: It is called waterfall. There is nothing inherently wrong with it, except customers didn't like the time it took to implement a change. And they want changes all the time.

[namaria]

> We are not engineers. We are craftsmen

Same difference. Both appellations invoke some sort of idealized professional standards and the conversation is about failing these standards not upholding them. We're clearly very short of deserving a title that carries any sort of professional pride in it. We are making a huge mess of the world building systems that hijack attention for profit and generate numerous opportunities for bad agents in the form of security shortfalls or opportunities to exploit people using machines and code.

If we had any sort of pride of craft or professional standards we wouldn't be pumping out the bug ridden mess that software's become and trying to figure out why in this conversation.

[alternatex]

That is quite a cynical take. A lot of us take pride in our work and actively avoid companies that produce software that is detrimental to society.

[namaria]

It is cynical but it is also a generalization better supported by the evidence than "we're craftsmen" or "we're engineers".

If you can say "I'm a craftsman" or "I'm an engineer" all the power to you. Sadly I don't think we can say that in the collective form.

[nyarlathotep_]

> If you can say "I'm a craftsman" or "I'm an engineer" all the power to you. Sadly I don't think we can say that in the collective form.

My cynicism of the software "profession" is entirely a function of experience, and these titles are the (very rare) exception.

The norm is low-quality, low complexity disposable code.

[computerdork]

Hmm, thinking back, think most companies I worked (from the small to the very large tech companies) had on average pretty good code and automated tests, pretty good processes, pretty good cultures and pretty good architectures. Some were very weak with one aspect, but made up for it others. But maybe I got lucky?

[mnau]

> Both appellations invoke some sort of idealized professional standards

The key point of the comment was that engineers do have standards, both from professional bodies and often legislative ones. Craftsmen do not have such standards (most of them, at least where I am from). Joiners definitely don't.

Edit: I would also disagree with "pumping out bug ridden mess that software's become."

We are miles ahead in security of any other industry. Physical locks have been broken for decades and nobody cares. Windows are breakable by a rock or a hammer and nobody cares.

In terms of bugs, that is extraordinary low as well. In pretty much any other industry, it would be considered a user error, e.g. do not put mud as a detergent into the washing machine.

Whole process is getting better each year. Version control wasn't common in 2000s (I think Linux didn't use version control until 2002). CI/CD. Security analyzers. Memory managed/safe languages. Automatic testing. Refactoring tools.

We somehow make hundreds of millions of lines of code work together. I seriously doubt there is any industry that can do that at our price point.

[generic92034]

> We are miles ahead in security of any other industry. Physical locks have been broken for decades and nobody cares. Windows are breakable by a rock or a hammer and nobody cares.

That is not such a great analogy, in my opinion. If burglars could remotely break into many houses in parallel while being mostly non-trackable and staying in the safety of their own home, things would look differently on the doors and windows front.

[mnau]

The reason why car keys are using chips is because physical safety sucks so much in comparison with digital.

The fact is we are better at it because of failure of state to establish the safe environment. Generally protection and safe environment is one of reason for paying taxes.

[namaria]

> The reason why car keys are using chips is because physical safety sucks so much in comparison with digital.

Not the reason. There is no safe lock, chip or not. You can only make it more inconvenient then the next car to break in.

> The fact is we are better at it because of failure of state to establish the safe environment. Generally protection and safe environment is one of reason for paying taxes.

Exactly backwards. The only real safety is being in a hi-sec zone protected by social convention and State retribution. The best existing lock in a place where bad actors have latitude won't protect you, and in a safe space you barely need locks at all.