On Nov 13, 2005, at 11:05 AM, James Gray wrote:
Is the analogy with bridge building and civil engineers valid?
I think it is, but I recognize not everyone agrees. There was an interesting, if provocative, column in the latest Communications of the ACM you might want to look up: "The Plot to DeSkill Software Engineering".
I would venture a guess that the majority of the work in building a bridge is done by the construction workers who do not know or understand the principles of physics fully.
That's a tricky one. I receive assignments (such as reformatting reports or adding new columns) that are essentially mechanical (I almost said "mindless"!) but I've worked on a number of projects requiring use of complex data structures, entirely novel algorithms, and tricky performance analysis, too. So it seems to be a mixed bag: sometimes we are called on to be engineers, an sometimes we are called on to construction workers. Unfortunately or fortunately, the trend today does seem to favor transforming software development into "construction" rather than an engineering discipline, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between architecture and management.
It may not even be necessary for the construction foreman who reads the blue prints to fully understand the physics. It is the civil engineers who must understand the physics. Or do they?
Good question. My father was a construction worker, and he certainly knew a lot more about physics than he probably realized. He may not have been able to formulate it all mathematically, and he wasn't always right, either. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the knowledge of a journeyman construction worker.
People have been building bridges and cathedrals that do not fall down since well before Newton articulated the laws which you say are so important.
Yeah...and they built a few that did fall down, too!
Are we programmers the engineers or just the construction workers? The electronic computer is not as old as I am. Maybe we are asking a lot of such a young technology. Maybe we could make a better analogy with medieval cathedral builders whose work has withstood the test of time. At that time the distinction between the expert builder and the laborors was not as great as that between the civil engineer who designs a bridge and the construction workers. Who are we and what do we really need to know that will help make software better?
Well, the computer is a bit older than I am, but not my much (I was born in 1962). The cathedral analogy is a good one. It took time to develop the flying buttress. Much of the technology that went into developing cathedrals developed through a long process of trial and error and the accumulation of folk knowledge. But would you really suggest that an improved understanding of physics hasn't enabled us to build better and safer structures? Would it be wise today for a construction firm to turn its back on the discipline of engineering and when erecting, say, large office complexes in earthquake (or hurricane) country? (Of course, the question of whether we should be building smaller is also interesting, and not a simple one. No doubt, there are significant lessons for the software industry here, too.)
=== Gregory Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] "You can't win if you don't finish the race." --Richard Petty ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
