Software engineers aren't real engineers

[Into the Night]

Building a large software application is far more challenging that building a car, as far as getting out a "bug free" product.

I have to cry BS on this one. You don't have to know materials science. You don't have to put your life in the hands of your large software application. You don't have to know electronics, mechanical engineering, or even the strength of a bolt you are using in a certain application. You don't even have to 'test drive' it much.

You drive cars, and you look on them on that level, but there is a LOT of engineering that goes into designing a car. That car today contains several large software applications too, BTW.

[Into the Night]

Have you ever known of a computer program that was bug-free?

Have you ever known an engine or structure that was bug free? Every aircraft, every ship, every road, every bridge, every building, every traffic light, every electrical system, ALL of it are compromises in design. Those compromises come from cost of materials, purpose of the object, etc. They ALL have bugs.

Even a 'hello' program in a computer has bugs. It's in the libraries you use.

[Legion]

Have you ever known an engine or structure that was bug free? Every aircraft, every ship, every road, every bridge, every building, every traffic light, every electrical system, ALL of it are compromises in design. Those compromises come from cost of materials, purpose of the object, etc. They ALL have bugs.

Even a 'hello' program in a computer has bugs. It's in the libraries you use.

Indeed.

[Into the Night]

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. How many new cars crash en masse on their way home from the dealer's showroom?

How many bridges fall into the river the moment someone walks across?

How many building collapse as soon as the tenants move in?

Yet I can't think of a single software program that isn't buggy as fuck, and most (if not all) of them require constant patches to fix shit that the designers didn't get right before they released it.

So "Bobb" the boob is FOS, in my experience.

New cars have both software, and bugs in the design of both their software and in their hardware. No new car is exempted from that. They may not crash, but they do have bugs.
Bridges might not fall into the river, but they too have bugs. They are weak or compromised by simple corrosion, exposure to certain wind speeds, settling of poor soils where the bridge is built, and a possible hazard to ship traffic in the area. They may not fall, but they too have bugs.

Every building, house, or even a shack has bugs in it's design. It might not collapse, unless there is a fire, but they often have inadequate electrical systems, inadequate communications systems, inadequate plumbing, or poorly designed HVAC systems. Yes, buildings have bugs.

[Into the Night]

Only a fcking moron would compare a bridge to a large software application. Are you a fcking moron? Bridges are very simple and do only one thing. Have you written a large bug-free software application, or you just a fcking moron who has no ability to even begin to grasp the complexity of software?

Not as simple as they look. They have to withstand shifting loads of various kinds, shifting weather conditions, a wide variety of current conditions if built over water, and shifting land. Indeed, the beautiful designs in many bridges are there because of they way they cope with one or more of these threats. They are all a compromise though. They do not cope well with other threats because of them.

[Legion]

New cars have both software, and bugs in the design of both their software and in their hardware. No new car is exempted from that. They may not crash, but they do have bugs.
Bridges might not fall into the river, but they too have bugs. They are weak or compromised by simple corrosion, exposure to certain wind speeds, settling of poor soils where the bridge is built, and a possible hazard to ship traffic in the area. They may not fall, but they too have bugs.

Every building, house, or even a shack has bugs in it's design. It might not collapse, unless there is a fire, but they often have inadequate electrical systems, inadequate communications systems, inadequate plumbing, or poorly designed HVAC systems. Yes, buildings have bugs.

Indeed. I can't recall a time when a building I have occupied failed to allow ingress or provide shelter, though. I can think of plenty of software glitches that prevented me from using the functionality the program was designed to provide.

[Into the Night]

Exposed to the elements? I guess we should use cement instead of paper. That was easy.

No bridges are made out of cement. Cement has practically no strength by itself. That's why it is mixed with stones and sand to produce concrete. Concrete has almost no tensile strength nor shear strength. It is best for compressive strength.

That simply overpass you see is not just cement. It's a composite structure. Concrete itself is a composite material. To gain tensile and shear strength necessary for that overpass to stand, you need steel reinforcing bars embedded in the concrete. Steel has much better tensile and shear strength, but is lousy at compressive strength.

It is also not a ridge structure. It's supports are designed to move without damage in most minor earthquakes. It's roadbed is designed to distribute a wide variety of changing loads to the support structure.

A bridge is literally a machine. It requires continuous maintenance. Even an overpass.

Computer programs don't use paper. They are bits in the memory of the computer. That is all they are.

[Into the Night]

Boeing is in big trouble because of a software problem. Two planes down in as many weeks, 300 souls gone. Go ahead, tell me that software is more complex than the world's most successful commercial airliner.

WRONG. It is not a software problem. It is a failure to use the sensors that are already there properly.

This 'software' problem is the same one that hit Toyota awhile ago with their 'sticking' accelerators. It is the use of a single sensor for a critical function. The ironic thing is, a 2nd sensor is already built into the aircraft, but they weren't using it. Now they do. The problem is fixed in exactly the same way Toyota fixed theirs (by using a 2nd sensor for the accelerator pedal).

Yes, it can be fixed in the software, but it's the design of the system as a whole, not just a software program.

[Into the Night]

Cement is glue. Bridges are made of concrete, and reinfoced by steel. Both products made by real engineers and misunderstood by many.

Exactly.

[Into the Night]

So, how do you feel about train engineers,

I like them. I was once an engineer on a railroad in Hawaii. I was also a conductor and a gandydancer on that same railroad.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Knowing computer languages proves nothing. SQL isn't even a programming language. It's a database language that is rapidly becoming obsolete. COBOL (it's an acronym, all letters are capitalized) is still used in government and large financial departments, but it too is becoming more obsolete by the day. C# is a proprietary programming language written by Microsoft and only fully runs on Microsoft environments. It is useless outside of Windows. I imagine the CIGNA software he developed has more to do with accounting than engineering.

Computers are not engines nor structures though they are machines. He didn't design or maintain either. He has done no engineering.

Too bad his career bothers you so. He did quite well at it. Many ppl can put together a computer and its hardware with little to no formal training. Designing large databases, otoh, is a few orders above that, as is designing UIs for the end users to access them. Apparently your own career hasn't gone so well, or you wouldn't feel the need to denigrate someone else's.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Industrial engineering isn't ABET accredited.

https://talk.collegeconfidential.com...ccredited.html

It surely is. Here is the accreditation from ABET for University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana campus, Mr. Owl's alma mater:

http://main.abet.org/aps/AccreditedP...11&ProgramIDs=

[Cypress]

It surely is. Here is the accreditation from ABET for University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana campus, Mr. Owl's alma mater:

http://main.abet.org/aps/AccreditedP...11&ProgramIDs=

That is actually hilarious. The wingnut provided a website no one has ever heard of.
And you provided the actual ABET engineering website.

What we should all takeaway is that it takes a person with a remarkable inferiority complex to invest time bad mouthing the college degree of someone they don't know, they will never meet, and is not here to defend themselves.

[ThatOwlWoman]

That is actually hilarious. The wingnut provided a website no one has ever heard of.
And you provided the actual ABET engineering website.

What we should all takeaway is that it takes a person with a remarkable inferiority complex to invest time bad mouthing the college degree of someone they don't know, they will never meet, and is not here to defend themselves.

For real. For some reason, they want to claim that "real" engineers make/design tangible stuff. According to the ABET site, however, that description seems to be Engineering Technology rather than pure Engineering:

"Graduates of four-year engineering technology programs are most likely to enter positions in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, product design, testing, or technical services and sales. "

[Cypress]

For real. For some reason, they want to claim that "real" engineers make/design tangible stuff. According to the ABET site, however, that description seems to be Engineering Technology rather than pure Engineering:

"Graduates of four-year engineering technology programs are most likely to enter positions in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, product design, testing, or technical services and sales. "

I have never really liked the superiority complex and disdain some in the natural sciences show towards the social sciences; aka, its not "real science".

I have never been one to fixate on turf wars like that. It wasn't until the last two hundred years until people started even drawing bright lines between science, natural philosophy and the humanities. In my opinion, if one is developing hypothesis, testing them, making observations, analyzing data, practicing inductive reasoning, and drawing reasonable conclusions, then one is basically practicing the scientific method.