this kind of thing is what I realised in my first 2 years of my work life. and whenever we have a family gathering, those relatives are usually bragging how hard their jobs and life are. but not me, I brag how easy my job is. clock in at 930, get the hell out at 1830, then no thoughts given about job after the hours.
Feedback: I opened your page, eager to read, saw the "subscribe to my substack" email popup and just left.
Not salty, just broke my interest. So now I will go about my day without reading your article. p.s. I'm sure it's very good though
Consider saving that popup until I've read some of the article
That's substack behaviour btw, and you can just click continue reading
While the low stakes can be seen as a privilege, I could also argue it can be seen as utterly detrimental.
Many of us suffer from mental health issues up to burnout. Why do we burnout if we're not dealing with life or death? Something is psychologically wrong with this job.
This is, obviously, a multidimensional issue, but one of the probable causes is Alienation. Ultimately, some software developers can, consciously or not, question the meaningfulness of spending 40+ hours a week on stuff that is, to a large extent, pointless - even harmful. Sure, the money is good, but how much cash do you need to buy meaning? How deep in the hedonic threadmill can you go before snapping?
I'm not even sure if these questions apply to myself, it's just something that keeps coming up in my own therapy and among friends in the trade.
Well put. After 10+ years in the industry I question how much value I've actually brought into the world, and it certainly did lead to major burnout, which I am only recovering from now after 8 months being funemployed. Only in hindsight do I see how bad it was for my sense of fulfillment in my life.
And this is why I have a few KLOC file that has every known media type as a named variable. It takes up less space than a single JPEG image, but it makes it so I never screw up media type spelling.
Because I, too, have been there.
The article is nonsense from the first sentence.
Software development has all of diagnoses, audits and proofreading.
It's an all-encompassing discipline.
> By Thursday, I began to worry about my own job security. I had been spinning on a feature I said I would ship 3 days ago.
Off-topic: is it really like that in the US? (I'm assuming he's from the US). Like, if you get stuck for a few days, you start to worry about being fired or reprimanded?
As real as the rest of the story.
wait... but why did it work in the development environment?
Exactly. That's what drove me crazy.
We had a presentation of our new medical instrument to marketing on Wednesday so there was a big push on Monday to get the display up and running perfectly. There was a dot on the screen. I didn't know why there was a dot but I was under pressure to finish everything else. So I semi-ignored it.
The the Engineering Manager walked by. "There's a dot," he said, "Get rid of it before Wednesday."
With all the other things going right with the project, why this dot--a single pixel--was so important drove us all crazy. I ran through the assembly code that handled all this over and over again and couldn't see anything wrong. Never a reported error by the assembler. Neither could the project manager. Stayed at work all night to wrap it all up and, on Wednesday morning, everything was done and working perfectly just as the Engineering Manager walked into the room at 8am.
"That dot is still there."
Like the author of the article, I questioned whether I should be in this line of work. I continued rewriting, assembling, and testing every variation of the code I could. At 3:00PM on Friday, I found the issue.
MOVE B #0,D0
Do you see it? Imagine this is the 1990s, with a green screen monitor and a PDP-11.
No I don't see it. Are moving D0 into B? What's the #0 doing?
The problem. It's MOVE.B #0,D0
Do you see it now?
I assume that’s where the framebuffer is?
Yes. Or at least the data for it.
Besides the debuggers/analyzers/simulators/emulators… we have at our disposal, a more powerful “ancient” mechanism exist: code inspection/review/desk-check by a fellow programmer.
I understand it’s not applicable in all positions/companies and heavily depends on the team and project size, but I’ve seen it work too many times.
Following this, the next best thing is testing (as others have commented).
I've developed a real distaste for the people whining about how we aren't real engineers and we "just" need to solve that by working more like real engineers and having all these massive up-front design meetings and making tons more plans, etc. etc.
It betrays a profound misunderstanding of the situation. The other engineering disciplines don't work like that because they're just soooo much more professional than us. They don't work like that because it is a better way. They work like that because for them, it is the only way. You do not build a hotel, and then realize the ceilings need to be six inches higher, and tear the whole thing down and start over.
If they could work by running ceilingHeight += 6 and hitting "Rebuild", see the hotel rebuilt and the automated unit tests automatically double-check the usability of everything inside for handicapped people etc., all for a grand total of about $2.82, they absolutely would.
Shed your inferiority complex. We are not squalling babies drooling on our blocks while Real Men (with all the pejorative connotations modern political sensibilities see in that term fully intended) are building bridges and dams. We engineer with better tools than they could dream of having, and it's completely expected that that results in highly significant changes to our processes.
Do we sometimes fail to bring enough process to a problem? Yup. But if you think that's a problem unique to programming, I prescribe to you spending several hours with https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4788946/ .
I think people who think software engineering isn't real engineering, will be shocked at how much "real" engineering is just people plugging numbers into software
Yeah, in my experience, the real world engineering was rushed, under funded, relied on gut feel, and could count on the humans on site building it to use their own judgement to make up for all the gaps in the designs, drawings or specs.
Although back then in the 90s it was plugging numbers into tables rather than software. Very little science involved in any of it.
Total tangent - one of the things I love about 3D printing is that it's about as close to "ceilingHeight += 6" as you can get in the real world.
Case in point: I modeled a thing today, printed it off, and realized that it would be ever so helpful if one part were about a millimeter thicker. 30 seconds later, version 2 of the part is on its way to the printer.
It's fucking _amazing._ I can't wait for stuff like that to become as mainstream as paper printers are.
I might be misreading but I think you're missing the forest for the trees. It's not about the upfront planning, meetings or whatnot, those are consequences of prior criteria. This is what engineering is:
1-A practical problem is being solved in a scientific way.
2-Safety, repeatability, understanding of the how and why of the solution are non-negotiable.
3-The person solving the problem has been credentialed as an engineer in both ethics and scientific rigour.
4-Because he is credentialed, there is non-waivable liability for the engineer signing off on the solution if it fails.
No whining or superiority intended, but if any of the four criteria is missing, you're not practicing engineering. In my experience most software development is missing all four. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just that most software development isn't engineering.
Again, nothing intended by it. There's no superiority to engineering over development.
My bleeding linguistic descriptivist heart breaks a little every time I see an argument devolve into squabbling about the meaning of the word "engineer". Like, we can totally debate the merits of applying or not applying those four rules to the practice of creating software, but do we really gain much by arguing about what label we use to represent them?
It's like how the word "literally" has come to be used as an intensifier, not strictly in the (ahem) literal sense of the word - and "objectively" is well on it's way down the same path. You can be angry about that, but it's not going to stop the continuing evolution in how the world uses those terms - and "engineering" as a term is exactly the same.
> 3-The person solving the problem has been credentialed as an engineer in both ethics and scientific rigour.
>4-Because he is credentialed, there is non-waivable liability for the engineer signing off on the solution if it fails.
Both of these are bullshit. The engineers that aren’t yet credentialed but do all of the work that the PE signs off on are still certainly engineering.
> 2-Safety, repeatability, understanding of the how and why of the solution are non-negotiable.
Safety critical systems would like a word.
I completely agree, it's 2 separate mediums with their own optimized process/technique.
It's like sculpting Clay vs Marble. If you make a boo-boo in clay, it just takes you a second to readjust. If you are working in Marble, and you took a piece out that you weren't supposed to - well it's time to order a new marble block.
Taking the techniques and processes of marble sculpting into the world of clay would just make you a bad (or at least highly inefficient) clay sculptor.
And there's really no point to a dick measuring contest of whether clay or marble sculpting is more worthwhile - they both have their own place in our society.
you can certainly fix an engineering design in-situ, just look at all the airplanes/jets designed pre-CAD software that were made "just-so" with all the know how embedded in the brains of those that made them/fixed them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPVT2lvMvOk
Of course you can... sometimes.
And you can't always do it in software, either. I keep a mental list of "things you can't really retrofit onto a mature piece of software" that I keep kicking myself to turn into a blog post sometime. I suppose a quick & trivial example is that pretty much by definition switching languages involves a rewrite.
(Though that involves a bit of definitional footwork where I declare using a compiler that goes from language A to B isn't really "switching to B". Anyone who has tried that maneuver in real life can attest it certainly isn't the same thing as a real full rewrite in the target language, even if it does sometimes have its utility.)
Still, there's literally orders of magnitude difference in how likely a given retrofit is to work and how easy it is for us to add it, and proof of that is precisely in the enormous signature this difference leaves on our processes.
> Shed your inferiority complex. We are not squalling babies drooling on our blocks while Real Men (with all the pejorative connotations modern political sensibilities see in that term fully intended) are building bridges and dams. *We engineer with better tools than they could dream of having, and it's completely expected that that results in highly significant changes to our processes.*
Why is the term engineer so important to you ? Just do your job, do it right, and ignore criticism.
I don't have the inferiority complex. I see it in others.
They are, frankly, welcome to it, right up until they try to ruin my job by adding negative-value processes because of their complex.
I now feel very validated for using TypeScript to statically validate mime types.
Perhaps the jpg -> jpeg tidbit will save my ass someday. Thanks
I always dogfood my own software, but now I guess I also need to corn cob dog my software, too.
Wait, how was this not caught in testing? It's not like this would differ between testing and production.
I believe the mimetype check on Android must have only been applied to production environments. It's an odd one.
And a roll back should have worked for this issue
I miss working on low-risk stuff like that. I now work in healthcare, and a missing letter can mean that someone dies.
This reminds me of a colleague I had that would often say "we aren't making air-traffic control systems here". The implication being that no lives were on the line if we made a mistake. This was when I was making games but it also applies to just about every CRUD app I've written.
Tangentially, one thing I often ask other senior technical leaders (especially Director, VP or CTO) is: what is the most costly mistake you have made? If you are a junior engineer, make sure you do it sometime. Many/most high-level leaders in tech can tell stories in the $100k to $1m range. I've seen people lose millions of dollars on a project and get promoted immediately after. It is important to understand why that can happen and why it can even be a good thing.
> we aren't making air-traffic control systems here
I also find that attitude troubling.
I've worked on software that could loose peoples' cherished data. Now I work on software that could cause flooding if it misbehaves.
Take a bit more pride in your work.
You can definitely take the comment in the worst way possible if you desire.
This was in the early 2000s in the games industry. I'm not sure if you are familiar with that culture, but it was a time when the engineers were working 12+ hour days for months at a time. People were pouring their heart, souls and sanity into shipping software, often working until they literally broke down. I remember one engineer boasting that he had worked for 2 months straight without taking a single day off.
In that environment the stress was high and technical discussions could often escalate into heated arguments. We often had to remind ourselves that we were making games and many people working there were supposedly living their childhood dreams. It was important to remember that.
The idea that we didn't take pride in our work or didn't do everything in our abilities to ship the highest quality software is beyond incorrect. It was that excessive pride that we needed to guard against by checking in to reality. It wasn't a call to laziness, it was a call to humility.
>The implication being that no lives were on the line if we made a mistake. This was when I was making games but it also applies to just about every CRUD app I've written.
I don't agree. Maybe a failure won't result in people dying in a ball of fire, but it can still cause harm. Even minor harm can still add up at scale.
Frustration from a buggy game could lead to real-world road rage or shouting matches. People have killed themselves because a computer sent them a bogus bill. Businesses have failed because software lost valuable data. People have been murdered because of silly social media apps. People have organized pogroms on Twitter. People have been stalked and assaulted using information leaked by Pokemon Go.
Software has real power. If it didn't, there would be no point in writing it.
It is fair to misunderstand what I was saying since all things are ambiguous. Without context I could see this being interpreted as permission for people to be lazy, incautious or even negligent.
But I urge you to consider the other side of the spectrum and the pressures that people can put on themselves. For some, in their search for perfection, they can ruin their own lives. They can see every mistake they make as a personal failure. It is useful to remember that in the vast majority of cases people bounce back from these failures.
You will hear over and over how many entrepreneurs fail in their first businesses, often several times. Most often in life you don't just get a second chance, you get many chances. There a only a few places in life where a single failure is truly catastrophic.
So if you find yourself overwhelmed as a junior engineer, as described in this story. If you feel your stomach in knots and you are terrified your lead in going to eviscerate you in front of a cheering audience - just know you have more latitude to fail and try again than you might expect.
I never thought you said that sloppiness is acceptable. I edited my comment to try to make that clearer.
But I think we should remember that everything matters. People's lives are not mostly made of weddings and funerals and gun fights and plane crashes. They're mostly made of chores and small talk and dumb little mobile games. Nothing is really trivial. You shouldn't beat yourself up over mistakes, but that's not because they don't matter.
Sure, everything matters. But some things matter more than others. If my internet fails for an afternoon that seems to matter less than if my wedding is a catastrophe. If my video game crashes that seems to matter less than a plane crash. We call this "putting things into perspective".
I mentioned the word "humility" in another response and that is the crux of what I'm trying to communicate. It is often the case that we can exaggerate the importance of our own work and it often helps to take a step back and humble oneself. If you find yourself losing sleep over your work, if you find your anxiety levels high, perhaps you need some perspective. Perhaps you find it distasteful for me to suggest that the engineering work of air-traffic control software matters more than most CRUD apps. That doesn't mean every other kind of software has zero worth. It just provides an anchor for perspective - a kind of software where literally thousands of lives are at stake 24 hours per day. Most developers are not under that kind of stress.
Several times throughout my career I've been hit with something erroring and it just being silent and completely stumping us. No error output, nothing. In a lot of these situations, we were able to track it down to some low level third party library doing `catch (e) {}`. The first one happened early in my career, and it was a good lesson. I don't take any error for granted, at the bare minimum I log it. You just never know, your software could still be used 5 years from now and in a totally different environment than you ever imagined.
This recently happened to me with DRF and JWTs -- the JWTs were invalid due to sporadic timing issues and we were unable to log in. There was no indication that anything was going on since DRF was swallowing the validation errors and returning a generic error, so I had to manually go down and add logging to find out what was even happening.
> DRF was swallowing the validation errors and returning a generic error
DRF assumes (for safety) that what you have is a public API. For JWT validation errors, you don't normally expect to have error-level logs, as it should be a problem of the API caller, not of the service.
However, if you are using DRF for an internal API, it is indeed useful to change the error handlers to, basically, add tracebacks to all the returned API errors.
Ohhhhh yeah. I'm working on some code right now where the previous drive-by author trapped the underlying library's exceptions, then raised completely useless ones instead. He also didn't know how to use the language mechanism where you raise one exception "from" the previous one, to preserve context in the stack trace.
Fun stuff. At least this isn't for my job, which has its own fun.
Oh this function is totally obvious to everyone on the team, no need to comment it.
30 years later:
/* X systems I modul body I 14.09.1990 */
void xxvcda(int *addr, int sizeof)
I always like to see upstream corrective action after something like this. If there was adequate logging / error reporting, this wouldn't have taken a week to fix. Whatever library he sent the invalid "image/jpg" MIME type to should have thrown an exception, crashed, or at the very least, logged loudly. I wonder if OP filed a bug against it.
Yeah, at the end of the article I even wondered what kind of environment Shawn (author) works in where it would take so long to diagnose?
Was Shawn able to access anything on the server that would confirm/deny that the image upload was coming through? Why did the image upload work in the test environment but not in the released version of the app? What was different about the test environment?
In theory, Shawn should have had enough access to the server environment (either by running the servers himself or asking someone to help him diagnose why an upload failed silently) that he should have had a reasonably quick answer to "why is this upload succeeding but not showing up?"
IMO, those lessons (why the upload worked in test but not in production) are significantly more important than "the image mime type was set to 'jpg' but should have been 'jpeg'" The bug is much more inconsequential to why the environment made it so hard to find the bug.
In my case, I had a situation where a desktop application was severely malfunctioning, but errors were not being logged. It took me multiple days to realize that the application was running out of file handles, and that log4net wouldn't log if it couldn't get a file handle. Even though the fix (reverting a very small bugfix) was simple; the real fix was to customize log4net to always keep the log file open. This way, if the application ran out of file handles, the error would be logged.
> Was Shawn able to access anything on the server that would confirm/deny that the image upload was coming through? Why did the image upload work in the test environment but not in the released version of the app? What was different about the test environment?
This reminds me of a product I worked on where several (in fact most) of the production-critical APIs (banking APIs, transfer APIs, etc.) had major undocumented differences between production and test instances to the point where if something was using them you just couldn't ever be sure that what you had was actually correct. Some of this stemmed from some of the APIs technically being mandated by law and there was no interest in actually making them good, but some of them were actual B2B solutions that just sucked for no apparent reason.
At points like these it's (IMO) quite defensible to build a very comprehensive adapter that basically does most of the surface work of the API you're using as best you know right now, i.e. almost pretends that it is the other system to a degree where you're re-implementing large parts of it.
Yup, that one paragraph left me scratching my head. In my mind the (very thinly described) image upload functionality should have failed regardless of configuration.
Maybe by "the images simply wouldn't upload." the author meant "did not display", and the file was being uploaded to the data store, was visible when viewed in the data store directly, but would not be displayed in app when requested.
I got the feeling that this is one of those 500-mile email[1] stories, where technical details are omitted for easier storytelling
It's not the technical details that's omitted, though. The 500 mile email story told us about the debugging process and limitations imposed by the speed of light.
Shawn correctly points out that it's okay to get stuck for awhile: It happens to everyone. But he never actually has a lesson that he applies to his job.
In the 500 mile email story, the real lesson is has more to do with understanding the risks of upgrades and the need to manage them.
The relevant paragraph in the article bothers me a bit:
"I re-uploaded a version with improved error handling, but image uploads were failing without any feedback. You see, normally code screams its errors at you in red text - silence is the goal. Here silence was the problem."
Silence is not quite the goal. Too many developers think silence is the goal, but the goal is actually accuracy. If there's no error, yes, it should be silent. If there's an error that affects the user, there should be a big red alert box. I believe developers should come to love error messages. Well written error messages reveal causes quickly and save everyone a lot of time.
I hope this developer has learned to show error messages more often. That would be a great outcome.
I would say it should be a big red alert box with a simple error code that the end user can reference when trying to find help.
The applications (CLIs, native, web, etc) I've seen that present me with non-actionable errors is a perpetual source of irritation.
"Failed to open file"
"File could not be uploaded"
etc
Not only are these useless to the user who can't do a thing about them except try the same thing again, they're useless to the developer or support engineer who might be trying to help them.
Related, the "oops, something went wrong" error messages absolutely infuriate me. Something about the tone, like a child spilling milk, and the uselessness of the message get under my skin.
The dog’s owner paid for surgery, but wouldn’t pay for an x-ray?
My friend thought this was weird as well, but apparently common. People think vet's are trying to rip them off when they ask for a $70 x-ray, but they're okay with paying for a blind surgery.
Cost to benefits probably. Vet X-rays are surprisingly expensive and then surgery had to be done anyway.
Even in human medicine some of the things on the "Do not do" guidance are diagnostic steps which are pointless because you will always do the same thing next regardless.
A bunch of them are for infant minor injury where it's like don't do an X-ray. If you can see a break on the image you'd do A, but if you can't you'd figure the break might be too small to show up and do A anyway. Kids don't need more radiation, just do A immediately without requesting an X-ray.
I have wondered if my cancer diagnosis is at the edge of this case. There's a step where they do a needle biopsy. But, as far as I can tell that biopsy always either says "Cancer" or "Don't know" and I'm not sure what else they'd do for "Not sure" beyond the next step in the cancer diagnosis...
There's also the cases where you don't do the test because you do not want to do the next step. E.g. the test results would indicate a need for a very invasive surgery or aggressive medical treatment, but you are 80 years old and you don't want to spend your remaining time recovering from surgery or sick from side-effects.
Sorry to hear that...hope everything works out okay
Yeah, it went fine. I had Hodgkins, like 20+ years ago, it's very curable and (I didn't know at the time) occurs relatively often in young men. They fixed it. It's fun because I'm a walking example of why universal healthcare makes sense - even economic sense. I was a broke student, if healthcare cost money there's no way I'd have even gone to a doctor to ask about my weird symptoms - they weren't even really annoying, just it seemed like it's something doctors should check. If it cost money I'd have waited until I was in serious pain, at which point it's more likely they can't fix it or that if they can fix it the fix is really drastic.
I didn't stay a broke student. I got a job, bought a home, I became a productive (tax revenue generating) citizen, instead of a corpse as would happen with no healthcare.
What symptoms did you have?
Mostly swollen lymph nodes, which is also associated with: Any infection (even one you didn't notice along with common colds). But I noticed they had stayed like that for a while, which I thought was odd. It is odd, turns out it can mean you have Cancer. Of your lymphatic system.
They're like $100… aren't they?
Our cat had follow-up x-rays after radiation treatment for a thymoma. Cost for the 3-view X-rays was $605.00, and the consult with the radiologist was $189.00. Bay Area, but still...
Something like that, should we get out out pitchforks now?
True but as the vet in the article states she couldn’t be sure that the extent of the problem was just the corn cob without an x-ray so to me it would seem more logical to take the x-ray once you’ve decided on surgery.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good blog post
> As software developers, it’s easy to overlook the privileges we enjoy. We have the unique ability to delve deep into intricate processes, monitor real-time activities, log what’s happening, and even pause time with a debugger. This remarkable capability is not only cheap but fast, bordering on thoughtless.
> While many other professions struggle to understand and resolve their issues, we have the advantage of being able to experiment multiple times a day with just a few clicks.
So much strained positivity, as if the author was tasked to find something to be thankful for. Look, software engineering is a great job if you enjoy the work. But even in this parable, the problem is the author's week of distress and flailing. It has nothing to do with the work and everything to do with the author.
All the others he turns towards, no matter their discipline, their tools for investigation, or the constraints they faced in a dilemma, relate stories where they have a mature understanding of how their industry works and how they navigate its system. They encounter problems in the course of their work and they resolve them in the course of their work. Maybe it takes a little while to proceed with diagnosis. Maybe it takes a long while to integrate improvements into a later product. Maybe they need to forgo some procedure that they prefer to use.
By the authors account, the embedded engineer, the hardware engineer, the CEO and veterinarian all face greater challenges when solving problems in their work, yet they all speak of their road through those challenges with a confidence that the author lacks. They try to soothe the author and empathize, but none of their stories hint at a week of panicked flailing.
So if they handle their work so much more confidently, is it true that their dilemmas are worse and that the author is lucky to be a software engineer?
If the author listened to their own invented characters, the realization to come to is not that the author is lucky to work in a field with purported "privileges" and that everyone else has it worse (gross!), but that everyone faces dilemmas in their work and that the real skill is in staying cool and confidently relying on the processes of their discipline. And this has everything to do with the person doing the work and nothing to do with the discipline. The realization is that challenges arise in all professions and that you can proceed through them without distress and flailing if you allow yourself patience and confidence.
It's funny because they wrote this as a parable, but they missed the real lesson in the very piece they wrote. Four people reassure them that "We've been there! We all go through this!" and their takeaway is "I need to remember that I'm lucky and that everybody else has it even worse."
I giggled at the end. Just yesterday, we solved an issue that plagued the company for 3 years. For us it was the letter 'A'.
Someone had been doing manual fixes inserting and removing data for the past 3 years. It became part of his job. He added a recurring event in his calendar just to do that regular clean up. Millions of customers depended on this one individual making sure they had the correct data plan on their phone line.
You can imagine the chaos when he forgets or goes on PTO.
Turns out: if $line->status == STATUS_ACTIVE
one was 'Active' the other was 'active'. No dogs were harmed, but incalculable money was lost over the years.
A tricky one that I’ve seen cause harm is white space or otherwise invisible characters (eg line breaks).
Super frustratingly, Macs populating HL7 fields caused intense pain. It turns out that the character ’ when typed on a Mac keyboard is not compatible with all versions of HL7, or perhaps wasn’t compatible with what the HL7 was passed off to. It’s a distant memory now but it was words like o’clock versus o′clock, or something like that which broke radiology report distribution.
It went on for years before being caught.
Edit: HN is displaying the ’ differently to how it looks when I type it, but it’s still the same character. The fact that we couldn’t see the difference when debugging was half the problem, so this is quite funny.
Encoding is hard. Recently had a problem where some proxy/load balancer (I think) in Go would crash, as it couldn't handle æøå in some headers which was returned from some service doing ip lookups before passing on the request. Which of course hit our workers in the city of Tønsberg.
Another example I remember from earlier days is the BOM in xml files. When it was wrong things could crash in all kind of weird ways, and impossible to see.
So somehow in some parts of the code STATUS_ACTIVE is defined wrong?
I guess there is always a risk that some "helpful" contributor will fix the typo in your definition of HttpHeader::REFERRER as "referer" to make it "referrer" instead, thus completely breaking all the software because nope, that typo is enshrined in the HTTP standard, it's Phillip Hallam-Baker's fault while he was at CERN.
> So somehow in some parts of the code STATUS_ACTIVE is defined wrong?
I would guess that some other part of the app doesn't even use the constant at all, and just hardcodes "Active" as a string on its own. Maybe taking the value of a dropdown from the UI and never mapping that back to the actual constant.
If this was a law case, the joke would have been:
'What have you done? You solved the case that put our entire family through law school!'
That poor soul is no longer indispensable. I am only half joking. Software is about making things more efficient, but I like to look at the human motivations.
A physicist friend used to quote Rutherford, all science is either physics or stamp collecting.
By which my friend meant, physics has a way of being checked by physical reality in a way that math or computer science don't.
His area of work was extreme magnetic fields. Experimenting meant building giant copper coils, running enough current in them to melt them in place, and then very quickly detonating explosive around the coil so that, for a fraction of a second, the magnetic field at the center of the coil became the most intense ever built by mankind, before the whole setup was destroyed by the splattering of liquid copper thousands of degrees hot. Errors and miscalculations in that work environment meant that people could die unpleasant deaths very quickly.
So when he looked at math PhD students who at most got chalk dust onto their sweater, calling themselves scientists, he disagreed.
Related to the correct interpretation of that quote:
> So when he looked at math PhD students who at most got chalk dust onto their sweater, calling themselves scientists, he disagreed.
I've not found mathematicians calling themselves scientists. In fact, it's usually the opposite: they boast that they are not scientists and are not limited by petty reality.
That's a rather unusual interpretation of the quote. According to several books, the meaning of that quote is that science is either mathematical and quantitative, or descriptive. In other words, you're either attempting to understand the dynamics of the subject or merely collecting interesting facts and naming items of interest.
I used to wonder why Dijkstra was so arrogant, and then I learned that he graduated in theoretical physics.
> His area of work was extreme magnetic fields. Experimenting meant building giant copper coils, running enough current in them to melt them in place, and then very quickly detonating explosive around the coil so that, for a fraction of a second, the magnetic field at the center of the coil became the most intense ever built by mankind, before the whole setup was destroyed by the splattering of liquid copper thousands of degrees hot.
Explosively pumped flux compression generators [1] are fun!
That’s how real EMPs are made, in case anyone is interested in a career in super villainy but doesn’t know where to start.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_comp...
Thanks, this will shave years off of my post-retirement projects!
For real, though, I've always found things like these fascinating.
I used to be very interested in working with software for weapons (specifically for fighter aircraft) because they've got very interesting problems to solve that usually are very direct. The amount of irrelevant code paths you can add, the amount of really far-away external stuff seems very limited at least in theory, so it seems a very interesting field to work in.
I could never get over that it would feel very bad being part of a process that ultimately might end in killing someone, though, so it was a non-starter.
Leave it to a physicist to misinterpret that quotation.
Perhaps you could enlighten us oh wise one.
The quotation has no connection to whether you can check your results with experimentation.
But my comment is a joke about their dismissive attitude towards mathematicians.
> I sent a message to my friend, "Cracked it at last. It was the letter 'E'."
Funny how the simplest, tiniest bugs are often the hardest to find. Just this morning I burned an hour or two hunting down an off-by-one error. Turns out it was an "index + 1" that I had forgotten to change when I refactored (facepalm).
As the saying goes, there are two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.
Three ha you missed out rd problems;concurrency.
You forgot Dates, Times and Timezones
Timezones: if you operate my code across timezones, you're wrong. Date and time: %Y%m%d_%H%M%S. Don't you dare ask for it to be shown any other way.
Loved this story. A bit skeptical that that kind empathetic manager really exists in the field, but maybe.
Most telling that no sales/marketting/product managers showed up to console the guy. Satire just couldn’t plausibly stretch that far. But maybe I’m too jaded. Would love to see the reply that posited a section to this story where the empathetic individual from one of those domains gave solace to the main character.
As a software engineer I always kinda enjoyed debugging. It allowed me to use a different skill and mind set than creating designs and implementing them.
Not to say I didn't get stressed out debugging. I had one demo while developing software for AT&T's 5ESS telephone switch. We had only one phone line in the test lab configured for our feature. Attempt after attempt the software just wouldn't work. Knowing the software worked, I checked everything I could all the while stressing out. Finally I asked the lab tech to check the line. Somehow our only configured line was disconnected. The problem was a stupid hardware issue.
I enjoy debugging when the tools are there, not so much when choices have been made to put everything too out of reach, either figuratively or literally. Debugging distributed systems in the cloud is exponentially more awful than debugging them when you can at least spin up all your services locally and that in turn is exponentially worse than when you can debug the problem in just one program.
An actual debugger also makes the act of debugging much nicer to me. I've never understood people who quibble about using either printf debugging or an actual debugger when using both is such a massive win. Arguably good tracing facilities should be highlighted here as well since they're much nicer than printf debugging when they're available.
> Not to say I didn't get stressed out debugging.
This is interesting because I remember very early in my programming journey I used to attach a lot of unnecessary things to not understanding why something was happening (or not happening) and gradually I just came to embrace the "Hang on, why is this so? I don't get it... Ohh, hang on... Wow, it really makes sense why this didn't work!" loop and internalize the fact that it feels really good when I get to the end of it.
The process of not knowing can only really get ruined by other people's expectations and behaviors for me at this point and I've learned over time that this can only be managed by being very assertive about how things are done (language choices, architectural choices, etc.) so as to make the process as easy and quick as possible. Ultimately it's a lot easier (at this point in my career) to convince someone that working with AWS lambda is a bad choice for performance, overall costs, debuggability and development speed (all to varying degrees) than it is to convince them later that there is a good reason that fixing that one problem is taking more time than it ought to.
> As a software engineer I always kinda enjoyed debugging. It allowed me to use a different skill and mind set than creating designs and implementing them.
Same here. I always enjoyed the challenge of it, especially in complicated systems.
I always feel that debugging is much more of a science than normal software development.
You need to spot unusual behavior, figure out ways to isolate and reproduce it, come up with hypotheses as to what might be happening, design tests for those hypotheses, run the tests, find the solution, test the solution -- exactly like the interplay of experimental and theoretical science.
... Detective work.
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
Thank you for this. Its lovely to be reminded that a lot of us share some the same ups and downs whatever we're doing.
A very nice post, well written and with a positive outlook on our position.
And while there are many developers that write software that directly impact in one way or another the lives of other human beings, generally speaking we need to recognize we are in a fairly privileged position, as the author states.
I'm feeling the anecdote about the wasp nest.
Landlord in our office complex installed a touchscreen interface on the outside of the building to dial the various front desks, all of which could buzz a person in. They did this because they had no front-desk receptionist who could see the door.
The thing lasted six months and then started to malfunction badly. The culprit? The interface is running on essentially a big black Android tablet and they installed it on the side of the building that faces East. Mid-spring rolled around and it caught enough sun every day to overheat and fry the touch electronics and part of the screen hardware.
As a software engineer, writing the kind of software I do, I never have to worry about thermal load.
Which reminds me of he story of sun stopping trains - Services at Lewisham, south-east London, were disrupted because of the angle of the 'low winter' sun, train operator Southeastern said.
The rail firm posted on Twitter: 'We had severe congestion through Lewisham due to dispatching issues as a result of strong sunlight.'
It added: 'The low winter sun has been hitting the dispatch monitor which prevents the driver from being able to see.'
Reminder that vets have it extra hard.
And a reminder to myself to do good.
Wow what incredible timing. I am currently working on an Image Uploader component and the gotchas are hiding around every corner.
This is one of those things I wouldn't suggest you solve with the "roll your own" approach. There are some good libraries out there that will handle this and more. Uppy is one that comes to mind. I created and maintained another popular one for 7 years that i sunset in 2017.
Currently using react-dropzone seems to solve most of the major issues for me. Use that to get a signed URL via API, then upload from client to image server directly.
Many exploits involve running arbitrary code hidden in encoded image and video files, notably Pegasus among others. This should be treated as cryptography.
That's quite a tale, a parable almost about how software engineering differs from other jobs (I want to say 'real' jobs but tongue in cheek). I like this one too, it's even snappier.
A software engineer, a hardware engineer and a department manager were on their way to a meeting in Switzerland. They were driving down a steep mountain road when suddenly the brakes on their car failed. The car careened almost out of control down the road, bouncing off the crash barriers, until it miraculously ground to a halt scraping along the mountainside.
The car's occupants, shaken but unhurt, now had a problem: they were stuck halfway down a mountain in a car with no brakes. What were they to do?
"I know," said the department manager, "Let's have a meeting, propose a Vision, formulate a Mission Statement, define some Goals and by a process of Continuous Improvement find a solution to the Critical Problems, and we can be on our way."
"No, no," said the hardware engineer, "That will take far too long, and besides, that method has never worked before. I've got my Swiss Army knife with me, and in no time at all I can strip down the car's braking system, isolate the fault, fix it and we can be on our way."
"Well," said the software engineer, "Before we do anything, I think we should push the car back up the road and see if it happens again."
> and see if it happens again
The "re-run to reproduce" isn't even the most peculiar part of software engineering; it's "we don't look at what has been tried before".
In the OP story example, there's this part: "One time we added ventilation holes to reduce heat, but they were just big enough for wasps to nest in". In a ideal world, the hardware engineers are supposed to know to not have any holes larger than a few millimeters, and other such things. Whereas the software engineers are (yet) not supposed to know much of anything like that. The most prominent example I can think of is "remember to add an index to the database when adding a new type of query to the app", as load testing that would catch it tends not to be done on each and every release.
Or they would say: go fast and break things!
Missed chance for a pun:
Go fast and brake things!
If you could click ‘relaunch’ and the car would miraculously reappear at the top of the hill and repeat the event, allowing you to freeze time at the instant the brakes failed, then pull apart every piece of the car so you could precisely observe the failure in real-time, in slow mo, and in reverse - to pinpoint exactly what the problem was
You’re saying the power to do that makes software engineers ridiculous or impractical?
Engineering inside a digital space gives the kind of debugging abilities that would be straight up miraculous in a physical disciple. If I have one thing, and I want to make ten more of those to test in ten different ways, it’s literally just CTRL+C, CTRL+V. Let’s see a mechanic do that.
Right with software we have abstractions and flexibility. With hardware they are grounded more to the physical capabilities of the hardware.
Of course software is also limited by hardware capabilities but we can code whatever we want on that hardware as long as it fits within the provided specs.
I would close all the windows and restart it.
I think it is possible to end this story in three possible ways, where each will be in favor of one of the professions.
please, go ahead
Let me retell this tale...
"I know," said the department manager, "Let's have a meeting, propose a Vision, formulate a Mission Statement, define some Goals and by a process of Continuous Improvement find a solution to the Critical Problems, and we can be on our way."
Knowingly the hardware engineer and the software engineer looked at each other. "Actually the car is fine, but let's pick a driver that knows what they are doing this time. You simply don't know how to use the breaks and were randomly steering left and right while thinking you're on track, management guy."
> "Well," said the software engineer, "Before we do anything, I think we should push the car back up the road and see if it happens again."
Only the brakes don't work - the engine still does. Why would they need to push the car uphill?
You are assuming it goes backwards or uphill. Better test that with a unit test.
Reminds me of the Family Guy episode (I think) when Peter and Lous are both running for Mayor (or whatever) and were going to a debate. Peter had his brakes cut and when he arrives says "Sorry I'm late! Brakes failed" to which the response was "Shouldn't you have gotten here sooner?"
That was a Simpsons episode. S9E22 Trash of the Titans.
Ah thanks, damn. Mixed up my adult animation. I swear I can picture the entire scene as Family Guy characters in my head though.
The brakes failed, but nothing claimed that they will fail again. So, it's suggested to run the test again.
Of course but they could run the engine instead of pushing the car.
"Magic", "More magic."
It's preferable the fuel state stays as it is. How do you know it's not the amount of fuel otherwise?
Presumably the engine was only idling during their decent if the only thing that slowed their car was 'miraculously' grinding the car against the mountainside.
So, using previous records, they should estimate fuel usage during the decent. Then they should walk to the nearest fuel station, purchase fuel, and walk back. During that time, they can calculate the amount of fuel that will evaporate while they have the gas cap off and the amount of fuel that will stick to the walls of the piping between the gas cap and the fuel tank. This way when they return to the car, they can put in almost exactly the amount of fuel that was consumed during their harrowing stop.
This presumes the fuel station has the same mixture as they have in their tank. Otherwise all bets are off and they should simply give up.
OBVIOUSLY, you could have solved the problem with motor braking. The driver is not going to accept fault until there is conclusive evidence of the their wrongdoing, but you can't let the team know you are going to repeat the test again but with a different driver because then they will invent objections to pushing the car up the hill.
Turn the car around 180 degrees facing up. Coast down the hill in reverse and control your descent with the throttle.
This story feels quite different without the context of the story this thread is about.
Is the moral of the story that the hardware engineer is simply correct? - a mechanical engineer
It is almost as if it is the closest profession to what they really needed: a roadside mechanic.
Also the story is unfair on the manager. The manager would call everyone in to have a war room meeting on how to fix this urgent production issues. They’d give a quick overview of the problem the open it up for the experts to talk. While the tech whizzes are talking they would order pizza or yum cha or something for the team.
Turn the car backwards and use forward engine power to slow the descent ;) or engine brake with the parking brake set and hope for the best
Or perhaps that nobody had the common sense to call a tow truck, so that they can get down the mountain without relying on a field repair to a safety-critical system.
Sounds like they were already down the mountain. Stopping to call a tow truck while traveling down the mountain would involve having working brakes, which the scenario suggested wasn't the case.
This makes a lot of assumptions about how far into the wilderness they were, time of day, accessibility of the roads, cell phone signal, and so on. To just hand wave and call it "common sense" is silly without the rest of the context.
And for me, 100 times out of 100 I'm taking the capable guy who can fix the brakes on a trip like this over someone who's first and (likely) only instinct is to call a tow truck.
As long as we're overanalyzing a joke, it's Switzerland. There isn't really a lot of wilderness there ...
This is true. I spent a week hiking the mountains, where I often could see exactly the same environment that has existed for millions of years. But at all those times, a hut serving beer and warm soup was always an hour's walk away.
NIH syndrome
Not invented here is the tendency to avoid using or buying products, research, standards, or knowledge from external origins. It is usually adopted by social, corporate, or institutional cultures. Research illustrates a strong bias against ideas from the outside.
It's mostly just a joke about how these roles do their jobs.
But I think it's also partly illuminating the fact that hardware engineers are true engineers, while software engineers mostly aren't.
I think "software engineers aren't really engineers" is putting "real engineering" on a pedestal that is borne of ignorance. Hillel Wayne's engineer interviews were eye-opening on this: https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/are-we-really-engineers/
Programmers calling themselves software engineers suddenly is a very recent phenomenon (barely a decade). Dunno who pushed that, but it's mostly basically (cognitively difficult) Lego at this point.
That said, it's also on the order of a hundred years younger a discipline and our theory is not so well developed.
Engineers used to mean seige-machine builders. Language will evolve.
> cognitively difficult Lego
Ah yes. Meanwhile, my friend who's a mech-e at a car company starts from scratch on every single last project, never reusing components, and also machines every component from scratch because there's no such thing as McMaster or any other vendor. When he works on a project, the physical parts never ever fit together like Lego. It's not like he'd use calipers or something to do what's called measuring (twice!) so that things fit together.
There are plenty of places to demand more rigor from people writing software before considering it engineering, but reuse of parts, and having them fit together nicely is a weird one.
Try longer than my career (approaching 30 years in the business), often pushed by the business and kicked into high gear with the rapid need for development resources with the combination of Y2K mitigation and the first dot-com boom.
Yes, there are a lot of "developers". But there are also software engineers, even if our engineering craft is less-well developed by the standards of civil engineering or mechanical engineering. I understand engineering organizations (like those in Canada) who oppose the use of the term "software engineer" because there's no common code of practice or standards in the same way that those who wear the iron ring claim is incorrect.
I think that we, as a profession, need a code of ethics (and the ACM has a good one, https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/) and the application of software in certain cases should absolutely be regulated the same way that the various physical engineering practices are (healthcare, AI, finance, legal applications) so that there are consequences for the businesses and potentially the software engineers involved with those businesses when they cause harm (see sentencing guideline software in the US; see the contract that developed the Royal Mail "audit" software that could never work as advertised; see the rampant fraud that is crypto; see the abuse of generative models to software-wash copyright violations).
But the lack of regulatory bodies does not mean that there's not a practice of engineering involved, it just means that there's no regulatory body that governs said practice.
> Yes, there are a lot of "developers". But there are also software engineers, even if our engineering craft is less-well developed by the standards of civil engineering or mechanical engineering. I understand engineering organizations (like those in Canada) who oppose the use of the term "software engineer" because there's no common code of practice or standards in the same way that those who wear the iron ring claim is incorrect
Just to clarify, there's no issue in Canada with "software engineer" specifically. "Engineer" is the protected term, and you have to be licensed to use it. So the issue applies to calling yourself any kind of engineer without being licensed.
If you are a licensed professional engineer in the software field, you can refer to yourself as a software engineer. This is just uncommon because there are not a lot of programs that grant BEng in software, the licensing is rarely relevant, and most people take CS anyway.
> "Engineer" is the protected term, and you have to be licensed to use it.
The IEEE documented that a little different:
It is the IEEE-USA position that:
• Individuals who have graduated with an engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering education should not be prohibited from using the title “Engineer.”
• The protected titles “Professional Engineer,” “Licensed Engineer,” “Registered Engineer,” and variations thereof, should be reserved for those whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public health, safety and welfare -- and who have been licensed to practice engineering by a jurisdiction.
From: https://ieeeusa.org/assets/public-policy/positions/workforce...
I was explaining the view of the governing bodies in Canada.
That seems to me to be a much more sensible position than that of the provincial licensing bodies here in Canada, who attempt to regulate all uses of the term "engineer", even though many uses are orthogonal to the regulated profession.
The objection is IMO as linguistically specious as the one aimed by MDs against PhDs. Both are entitled to the honorific Doctor, and context is as important as anything else.
> barely a decade
Yeah, no.
My dad called himself a 'computer software engineer' in the early '90s. I don't think it's only a decade old.
In the 90s it sounded pretentious and people used to joke about it. In the early days of Google they tried to label themselves as engineers to set themselves above the rest of silicon valley. It was a way to try to signal that their work was somehow more technical
I liked these interviews but I do find the result kind of... apathetic? I feel like you can read these and just come to a sense that nothing is engineering because everything is amorphous, which is not (I think) Hillel’s thesis but he doesn’t really want to anchor the discussion in principle because he is fundamentally asking for opinions.
For a more principled approach, I would say (as one of these “licensed engineers who has not done as much actual engineering”) that engineering as I have seen it kind of has three really major themes:
• Prototyping/building/creation. Tinkering. I guess the reason we don't talk about this is that everybody finds it trivial? But when you talk to ChemEs and they discuss optimizing pipelines for chemical processes you do see that it can get a little abstract so it's worth pointing to as a baseline.
• An underlying scientific theory that guides the models used. Building stuff has happened since way before science but engineering is clearly a postscientific endeavor, “here’s the underlying mechanical principles of how this works.” This is probably the sketchier principle in how we talk about “is this software design really engineering,” we tend to not have a firm scientific understanding of the problem domain of building software. Some things like CAP theorem, patch theories in version control (Darcs, Pijul), distributed consensus algorithms, TCP/IP, I would say really rise to that challenge and say something hard-learned about real systems. Things like OS kernels also have so much trial and error, so much prototyping that it feels like “yes you really did do enough hypothesis-test-reëvaluate cycles that the result embodies a model of the problem domain that counts as a scientific understanding.” But a lot of our work is just gluing systems together and that seems more “electrician” than “electrical engineering.” Now, science uses math, so people think of engineering as highly mathematical, I am not sure that it has to be. Whereas I do think it has to be scientifically based.
• The last big thing that I think we don't talk about enough is risk assessment. The reason that we’re doing all of this science and math to build a bridge, is so that we can assess how strong it needs to be to just barely survive the peak loads that it will ever have, and then double that strength just in case.
I think that when we say “not all programmers are doing software engineering” a good proxy for that is looking at, first, do you have a scientific model of the sorts of approaches that you can do; and then, do you use it to assess numerically the kind of loads that your system will come under up-front and design accordingly—writes per second, queries per second—and set realistic targets and choose caching and consensus and whatever else to achieve those and measure that you have... Or do you work via crude heuristics, “we use Kubernetes so I'm sure it will scale later, we do ‘best practices’ so we don't have to think about those,” and related kludges where we can comfortably say you're just tinkering rather than being principled about it.
And then, this reveals that maybe you don't need to be doing engineering, maybe you really do just need to tinker in the problem space while you achieve better product-market fit. Maybe you are doing science rather than engineering, and that is okay. Like, the idea that you are going to launch the next space shuttle with your reliability, I am sure that makes for a very energized, focused workplace, but it's not a precondition, it's not the only way to get there.
I have a different take. Engineer is basically synonymous with application physicist. Someone why applies the laws of physics to achieve a goal. I don't think this is so much a pedestal, or why some software engineers are passionate. Is being a computer scientist somehow negative?
I think of applied physicist as something very different, closer to science than engineering. The kinds of people who research new battery chemistries, or the techniques to unlock new semiconductor process nodes. Basically, scientists do hardcore research and expand the field, while engineers apply the techniques and formulas that the scientists have discovered, and craftsmen combine prepackaged modules built by engineers for a job.
So an applied physicist discovers the light-emitting diode. An electrical engineer designs an LED light panel. An electrician wires light panels into a home.
Likewise, a computer scientist discovers NFA reduction, an engineer uses it to build a regular expression compiler, and a developer writes a regex to validate email addresses.
An electrician who designs a complex light panel using 120VAC for use in a habitable or public building needs to submit the plans to the building department to get a permit and certify that it's not a fire hazard. You need to be a Licensed Engineer™ to do certain levels of certification.
People certified to be licensed engineers didn't necessarily graduate from a School of Engineering at a famous university that is also filled with physicists and mathematicians and English literature. Instead they need to study, learn, and pass the tests that legally certify them as Licensed Engineers™ to keep us all safe. It's much of the same material, overlapping, but not the same. They're less likely to consider themselves ready to move over to building rocketships to the moon on the basis of their bachelors degree.
This is the source of all the debate about who is an Engineer and who is not. Licensed Engineers don't want to consider unlicensed engineers as engineers. People who went to universities and had to study a dose of liberal arts along with control theory to get their "Engineering degree" don't want to consider the choo choo Train Engineer™ as an engineer.
In the US there is a bit of academic snobbery around, it's not universal but, University of Michigan is harder to get into academically, and a little more high falutin'. Michigan State is a bit more plebian but more practical. University of Washington vs. Washington State, same thing, and so on. The licensed engineers are more likely to come from the State school, the unlicensed engineers more likely from the University of. Both want recognition for their training, which makes sense.
I'm exaggerating for effect, but this is the issue. Whether software engineers are engineers is a minor skirmish on the flank of this larger war, both because there are no certifications for computer engineers, and because mathematicians are not engineers and programming languages can be studied from a mathematical perspective or from something closer to Electrical Engineering.
I'm confused, is the electrician in this example the Licensed Engineer(tm)? They definitely have to be licensed, since they can burn your house down if they don't know what they're doing. And checking that the plans aren't a fire hazard isn't done by an electrical engineer, is it? I definitely wouldn't trust the electrical engineers I went to school with to do DIY home wiring, by the same token.
absolutely, you nailed it! "collegy" engineers don't know a damn thing about safety in the home, and what causes electrical fires. They know kinda ("resistance results in heat") but they don't know specifically a zillion little gotchas that have killed thousands of people in electrical fires.
if you want to cut a hole in your wall to put in a window, it could be as easy as cutting a hole and putting in a window. Or, it could be that it's a "load bearing" wall, and you need to put a wide I-beam over the new window to safely redistribute/bear the load that the formerly intact wall was carrying. Or, you could have chosen a spot on the wall that has a column/pillar that's holding the roof up. Probably you'd choose a different spot, but if wanted that spot you could hire some engineers to figure out a new set of "cantilevers" or "flying buttresses" or (i'm not this type of engineer, I'm just throwing around words).
As the work you do becomes more and more dangerous to more and more people, you need somebody with higher levels of certification/licensure to approve the plan.
an electrician, who has a license, is not an engineer, but a good electrician could become one if she wanted, it would require study and exam passing. Some electrical work an electrician is allowed to do, they can "self certify", but the city might spot inspect it. The next level of complexity they perform the work, but a building inspector needs to inspect. The next level of complexity, the plans need to be certified and approved in advance.
I'm sort of making this up, piecing it together how steam fitting is done (that's mechanical engineering), how air handling is done (also mechanical engineering), plumbing, etc. But this is the general scheme.
some of this is legacy disputes left over from the 19th century. When they were inventing electrical circuits, everybody was an engineer and everybody could do everything, and people just invented stuff on the spot and tried it. After enough people died, it was decided we needed standards. And slowly a white collar/blue collar sort of distinction started to emerge, for work that required calculus vs work that requires knowledge of lots of specific requirements.
Calculus people design cars and planes with smooth sleek shapes, but those items can't be constructed without the other type of engineer saying "hey, that's not strong enough"
To the extent that Australia and the US are similar, various things require a licensed tradesperson to certify.
The sticking point is what licensed tradesperson would sign off on work done by another unlicensed person?
Here, I've often done full 240 V AC wiring and gas fitting for houses, workshops, abd glass blowing | ceramic studios .. but never connected or made any of it live, instead I've called in local tradespeople to inspect and test the work from end to end, just as they would check the work of an apprentice, and then certify it.
It's been cheaper for me that way as well as allowing for better control of how I want things to go, it's been less hours work for them in an area where they're in high demand and a bit of a win-win.
On at least two such jobs I've been advised to change some details as the most recent codes had changed and required things I'd been unaware of, no drama.
And no, in general university electrical engineers don't leave university with the practical trades skills to wire looms between power plants and racks of mills, screens, and grinders drawing high voltage high amp three phase and requiring complex control and instrumentation circuits.
They can sketch that out but they rarely get the practical cable pulling, wire cutting, box layout, etc experience outside of an actual trade apprenticeship type role.
Why not hire hardware engineers to write software then?
I learned ForTran whilst studying Civ Eng. back in '89 - '91 . Notice the two digit year - you software lot gave us the Y2K snag 8) It seems rather silly these days when terabytes are trivially available but when every bit, byte and nybble costed rather a lot, it nearly made sense.
If software techies/engineers wish to push back, may I suggest: Tay bridge, Tacoma Narrows, Millennium bridge and concrete cancer. Comet commercial jet airliners and the many snags that lead to fillets and rounded corners on ships int al. Do we count Titanic as "user error" or inappropriate expectations exceeded?
Building as practiced by hardware engineers is not linear in number of unique components. Building as practiced by software engineers is, at a terrible price.
Try it and report back!
Because software development isnt an engineering task.
Engineers are good at building bridges, and artists are good at making paintings. That doesnt mean it is a good idea to have the engineers paint paintings.
That’s the point. It’s not software developer’s fault that things are the way they are. Anyone with strict engineering discipline or whatever is welcome to create software the right way.
It might help to learn a little more about Engineering.
Leaving aside the four splits, Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, and Electronic with the obvious corollary that few Engineers build bridges, I'm reminded of my first student Engineering project back in 1983 (ish).
Building a sheep shearing robot - hardware and software, with no pre existing libraries of control software, etc.
https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/clippings/how-nece...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/robotica/article/abs...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAh2zv7TMM
A great chunk of software was written by Peter Kovesi .. a mechanical engineer still working on computer vision projects today: https://peterkovesi.com/projects/
You sound more than a little ignorant of the breadth and depth of talent in the world and more than a little inclined to believe that people can be boxed up and ring fenced by your particular world view.
No sheep were harmed in the making of this robot. Sheep literally fell asleep when secured.
Software engineers for critical systems would like a word.
Yeah it makes no sense. Like, you build an airplane and clearly the airplane needs both it's software and it's hardware in order to fly.
Somehow the people who made the hardware are engineers, but the people who made the software aren't engineers.
Nobody reasonable is saying that software isn't important, technical, or valuable. It isnt a dig.
It just has to do with the subject matter and definition of Engineer. The clearest delineation is that an Engineers work is the application the laws of physics. Software developers are more akin to Scientists than Engineers. They work in the arrangement of logic and the semantic relation of abstractions.
That is to say, Engineers work within a framework of rules, and Computer scientists construct frameworks of rules.
The definitions you just came up with are completely arbitrary. Worst yet, your definitions aren't even shared.
It's hard to pin down exact agreed upon definitions in English, but I searched many popular dictionaries and none of them have "Engineers work is the application the laws of physics".
Fair enough if you want to have personal definitions of words, but don't try to gaslight the rest of us into thinking your understanding is the canonical one.
Here's my facetious definition to illustrate how dumb the discussion - I think an engineer is a person who works with ENGINES (duh it's in the name). Obviously people who build bridges aren't engineers; do bridges have engines?
I brought up a definition shared by many people, and did so without hostility. Do you have a real definition that you can bring to the table? Is there a reason why you are taking things personally?
Can you articulate the difference between an engineer and a scientist?
No you didn't have hostility, but you had a boat load of pretentiousness, and unfortunately that's often indistinguishable.
> I brought up a definition shared by many people
What you did is discount the definition used much more widely and commonly. You didn't just bring up a new possible definition, you declared another one invalid by saying "Because software development isnt an engineering task".
If you want social counter-proof you can go to LinkedIn and type "Software Engineer" to see how many people consider Software Engineering to be a form of engineering.
> Do you have a real definition that you can bring to the table?
Yes, the definition that I think has the most use to society and is most precise while still being inclusive is "Engineers are people who solve real world problems in resource constrained environments". In fact I think the best engineers work across mediums, including software. For example, someone who engineers a robot has to do mechanical and software.
> Is there a reason why you are taking things personally?
I'm not, not sure what leads you to conclude this.
> Can you articulate the difference between an engineer and a scientist?
No I can't. Does that matter?
Some bridges do have engines, many more have motive force. Of course, a lot of them just stand there, not doing much at all.
But, someone who isn't wearing a blue and white stripey hat can't possibly be an engineer.
To artists, engineers are artists who are good at math.
Art is for everyone. Painting is a special form of art. Math makes for beautiful art, so download LibreCAD and free your mind.
(Speaking as an ex. IT guy, ex. CNC machinist who is attending art school at the age of 40 as a form of rehab.)
Software engineers are cheaper and more plentiful
Cheaper?
True. We’re scientists. Replication is important! :)
> True. We’re scientists. Replication is important! :)
Yes replication:
Oops we got hacked. I wonder what happens if we write insecure code again.
Oops we got hacked. I wonder what happens if we write insecure code again.
Oops we missed a deadline. I wonder what happens if we underestimate again.
Oops we missed a deadline. I wonder what happens if we underestimate again.
It isn't difficult to find non-software projects that overshot deadlines by years and costs by tens of millions or more, just to still have a leaky roof. Including, whether you believe it or not, engineering work.
Wow somebody’s salty
When did software estimates ever factor into deadlines? I have always found that my estimates + a bit of padding are generally correct. Then management just picks an arbitrary due date that has nothing to do with programmer estimates.
Plus nobody estimates on timescales anymore. We all use sprint points.
"Empirical science" sounds better than "have you tried turning it off and on again?", doesn't it.
I read is as a reference to https://xkcd.com/242/
No, it was a modern car and an unusual set of circumstances lead to a software bug occurring in the regenerative breaking. It needs further testing on that incline, at that time, in that weather with that weight in the car.
Was it pulling an F-150?
The big advantage to software engineering is we deal in abstractions. I liken it to building castles in the clouds; everything down to the foundation is reshapeable.
... the big disadvantage to software engineering is we deal in abstractions. Everything down to the foundation moves.
> I liken it to building castles in the clouds
You’re very positive. When you see a developer dealing with a bug, it seems more like they are dealing with a turd palace floating in a sewer.
Turds are shapeable, too. Hard to polish, I've heard.
But you control the poopy stack.
> [Turds are] hard to polish, I've heard.
Mythbusters did it:
> Adam and Jamie first visited the zoo to obtain a variety of feces to try to polish. Poop collected, they tried to pick the most polishable candidates, and then baked them to remove the moisture. Adam tried to shine his poop with a buffing wheel, while Jamie's tactic of applying a furniture polish caused a philosophical disagreement between the two. Adam eventually brought in an outside expert to teach them dorodango, a Japanese art form that allows a practitioner to apply a shine to dirt using nothing but water and physical effort. Applying this technique, Adam and Jamie were both able to polish balls of poop without using any foreign materials as judged by a gloss meter, exceeding a standard of 70 gloss units for high gloss.[0]
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2008_season)#Epis... (Section: You Can't Polish Poop)
Also, software is right now primarily a means of codifying human thought, which means it embodies the whole spectrum of human sanity and competence
That deep thought seems especially appropriate for XKCD, yet your username curiously suggests you would disagree.
I read this on break and needed to hear these words of encouragement and hope.
Thank you for sharing your misadventure with us.
A good Friday story.
> I sent a message to my friend, "Cracked it at last. It was the letter 'E'."
Enum types have saved me so many "typo"-related errors. Even in this case, it's not exactly a typo, but the encoding process should make you ask questions about the domain and the meaning of the strings you operate on.