[Discuss] Software Engineering redux

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, we all do not accept this assertion.

Then I apologize for mischaracterizing.  I meant it more as a segue
from one conversation to the next than as an assignment of belief.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Tom Metro <tmetro-blu at vl.com> wrote:
> That's not to say this wouldn't still be controversial and take decades
> to reach an industry consensus. Do you include design patterns? Which
> ones? Test Driven Development? Agile practices?

One Time I Heard This One Mechanical Engineer Say (cough cough...)
that most of his schoolwork involved learning concepts, principles,
and mathematics, and then learning where to find all of the specifics
when he needed them later.  He doesn't have to know the specific
limits of every material, so long as he can find them and do the
calculations correctly based on what he's found.

> I'm just regurgitating an argument I've ran across several times, and
> agree with, which is that the vast majority of software doesn't need
> this rigor, and applying it will impose unnecessary costs with little
> benefit. The Agile principles of implementing only what provides value
> to the customer is effective and efficient. It does not, however,
> provide an excuse for not using a good architecture.

I completely agree.  Much the same way that the design for a child's
toy doesn't have to be signed and stamped by a Professional Mechanical
Engineer, not all code would have to be certified by a Professional
Software Engineer.  But that doesn't mean that the existence of a
Professional Software Engineer title with the National Society of
Professional Engineers would not be valuable.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is a hidden slippery slope.

It might be, but there's no reason to expect that certification of one
system as "life-critical" would necessitate that every other system be
similarly certified.  We currently have standards in the US for all
equipment that goes into a hospital (I used to test infusion pumps, it
was horribly boring) and that's a good thing, but nobody would think
to suggest that the surgeon's vehicle needs to meet the same standards
as his infusion pump or monitoring equipment because otherwise he
might not get to the hospital in time.

In summary, replying to several emails in one makes for a very long email.

-Dan