Motivation of software professionals
in [Java Programming]
|
From: MarkusSchaber on 9 Feb 2010 09:05 Hi, On 9 Feb., 14:23, Mike Duffy <resp...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > > Death is always the most compelling reason for not continuing to work. May I consider this the "Quote of the day"[tm]?
From: John Koy on 9 Feb 2010 18:02 Arved Sandstrom wrote: [...] > Engineering "certification" processes are considerably better and more > comprehensive than anything that most software developers are ever > exposed to. Starting with education - there's no requirement at all that > software developers have a relevant degree or associate degree, or > indeed any real SD training at all. Try that with prospective > professional engineeers. > > It's not just entry-level certification that software developers lack. > It's code of conduct, professional education, duty to the client, > professional discipline and so forth. These are all standards. In order > for software "engineering" to really be engineering it has to adopt > similar standards. > As long as we disclaim all liability and give no warranties for the solutions/products we build, SD cannot be an engineering field and the term "software engineer" remains as an oxymoron.
From: MarkusSchaber on 10 Feb 2010 02:49 Hi, On 10 Feb., 00:28, Seebs <usenet-nos...(a)seebs.net> wrote: > I don't buy it. Software engineering isn't the exact same kind of thing > as structural engineering is, or the exact same kind of thing as electrical > engineering is, but then, those aren't quite exactly the same kind of thing > either. I personally think that the main difference between "Software Development" and classical "engineering" is the level of abstraction. Software development tends to have far more levels of abstraction, and even their lowest levels of abstraction build on top of those levels provided by the electrotechnical engineers. http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=255898 is also a good reading on why software development is neither engineering nor mathematics. Markus
From: Seebs on 10 Feb 2010 02:59 On 2010-02-10, MarkusSchaber <msr(a)soloplan.de> wrote: > I personally think that the main difference between "Software > Development" and classical "engineering" is the level of abstraction. > Software development tends to have far more levels of abstraction, and > even their lowest levels of abstraction build on top of those levels > provided by the electrotechnical engineers. This is true. However, I don't think that makes it "not really engineering", any more than using a shovel means you're not *really* digging, just using a tool provided by someone who makes digging implements. Of course... It would make sense for me to think that way. Since I do software development, and that means I spend a lot of time working with many levels of abstraction, I tend to think that abstractions built on other things are not all that different from the things they're built on. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Malcolm McLean on 10 Feb 2010 05:03
On Feb 10, 1:02 am, John Koy <John....(a)example.com> wrote: > Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > As long as we disclaim all liability and give no warranties for the > solutions/products we build, SD cannot be an engineering field and the > term "software engineer" remains as an oxymoron. > Basically no-one knows how to built bug-free software, so the lability exclusions are necessary. They would be commercial suicide in any other field. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as software engineering, only that it is new and undeveloped. Boilers used to regularly explode at the beginning of the industrial revolution, now such accidents are almost unheard of. |