That's because most "software engineers" aren't actually engineers. They're more systems designers and analysts with a bit of programming knowledge and a little bit of a computer science background. Being a real engineer is very different.
That's not "computer science", you're talking about programming or software engineering, which are workers building what computer scientists have figured out. There are very few computer scientists. They are basically specialized mathematicians. Think Dijkstra. Google has most of them chained up in a basement somewhere writing sharding algorithms or something. It's confusing because many programmers get CS undergrad degrees, but they are starting to make "software engineering" degrees.
It's true that CS doesn't use the scientific method, but neither do library science, "scientific socialism", etc. Popper isn't the be-all end-all.
Pretty sure you could word things similarly for every field that's around. I've yet to find a proper explanation for "software development is not engineering"
I think this is not true. When interviewed, people who have crossed over from ChemE/MechE/etc say it's engineering. We just iterate a lot faster because compiling is cheap and most software failures are cheap.
I think we rely too much on stereotypical ideas of what "real engineers" are doing, which can't be defined and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. For instance, is designing a processor in VHDL computer engineering or merely programming?
That's because most "software engineers" aren't actually engineers. They're more systems designers and analysts with a bit of programming knowledge and a little bit of a computer science background. Being a real engineer is very different.
Computer science isn't science and software engineers aren't engineers.
Why not?
Because for the most part it's approached completely unscientifically - especially in the corporate setting.
What code is "cleaner and more maintainable?" All vibes.
How should we write tests to ensure they're robust and covering all expected functionality? Who cares just get the tool to 90% coverage and ship it.
A carpenter isn't a wood scientist
That's not "computer science", you're talking about programming or software engineering, which are workers building what computer scientists have figured out. There are very few computer scientists. They are basically specialized mathematicians. Think Dijkstra. Google has most of them chained up in a basement somewhere writing sharding algorithms or something. It's confusing because many programmers get CS undergrad degrees, but they are starting to make "software engineering" degrees.
It's true that CS doesn't use the scientific method, but neither do library science, "scientific socialism", etc. Popper isn't the be-all end-all.
Fair enough I had been considering deleting/rewriting my comment for a similar reason. Point still stands if you replace CS for SWE
yeah SWE is not science, we're not discovering anything we're just building
They don't use the scientific method, and they generally don't publish research or collect data.
It's math. You don't really use the scientific method
Pretty sure you could word things similarly for every field that's around. I've yet to find a proper explanation for "software development is not engineering"
engineering is when you are tangentially related to someone wearing a hard hat
Don't forget the sweaty muscular men!
I think this is not true. When interviewed, people who have crossed over from ChemE/MechE/etc say it's engineering. We just iterate a lot faster because compiling is cheap and most software failures are cheap.
I think we rely too much on stereotypical ideas of what "real engineers" are doing, which can't be defined and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. For instance, is designing a processor in VHDL computer engineering or merely programming?