[wakawaka28]

Software engineering is not necessarily shallow in any sense. Reasoning about large and imperfect systems can be so much harder than finding average publishable CS results. But the difficulties are often so particular to the software and situations that it isn't of interest to academics.

[znpy]

> Software engineering is not necessarily shallow in any sense.

I should have been clearer in my writing. What i meant to say is that the math involved in pure software engineering is much more shallow than the math involved in pure computer science.

> Reasoning about large and imperfect systems can be so much harder than finding average publishable CS results.

x doubt...

[wakawaka28]

>x doubt...

Ah so you are an academic. I have been in both places. Industry people have to not only think of ideas but implement them with real computers. In some cases the computers must be built specifically to solve the problems. Millions of lines of code, broken shit, backward compatibility, stuff that can only be found through years of use. I suppose one can try to make an academic problem out of any industry concern, and therefore appear to be "more sophisticated" but inferior, partial, and broken proposals are regularly published. To get published, even a sketch of a possible solution with no implementation often flies. In industry, a lot of inferior stuff is accepted out of necessity, but it's often do or die with deadlines and real budgets to be concerned about.

[znpy]

I’m not an academic and i’ve worked in any size of companies so far. From mid-sized (50) developers to FAANG-sized.

Most software engineering is not math-heavy at all nowadays.

[wakawaka28]

I'm not saying it's math-heavy, but it's not necessarily simple. Also, just because something has math, doesn't mean it's more complicated than everything else.