[kloop]

> The idea that because software goes through a standardised workflow and pipeline over and over and over again as it’s built it’s somehow like a factory is also bullshit.

I don't think it's bs. The pipeline system is almost exactly like a factory. In fact, the entire system we've created is probably what you get when cost of creating a factory approaches instantaneous and free.

The compilation step really does correspond to the "build" phase in the project lifecycle. We've just completely automated by this point.

What's hard for people to understand is that the bit right before the build phase that takes all the man-hours isn't part of the build phase. This is an understandable mistake, as the build phase in physical projects takes most of the man-hours, but it doesn't make it any more correct.

[bartread]

You're misunderstanding my meaning with pipeline: you're thinking it's just the CD part of the equation. I'm thinking about it as the whole software development and delivery process (planning, design, UX, dev, test, PR reviews, CD, etc), which can be standardised (and indeed some certifications require it to be standardised). In that context, even when the development pipeline follows a standardised process, most of it's nothing like a factory: just the CD part, as you've correctly identified. Because the output of CD will be, for mature software, 99+% similar to the output of the previous build - it is definitely somewhat analagous to manufacturing, although if you think about adding tests, etc., the process evolves a lot more often and rapidly than many production lines.