Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #10374 > unrolled thread

Is there a term for all tasks around programming?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Is there a term for all tasks around programming? DeMarcus <use_my_alias_here@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 11:25 +0200
    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Fulvio Esposito <esposito.fulvio@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 02:33 -0700
    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 21:35 +1200
      Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-22 11:36 +0000
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-23 07:43 +1200
    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-22 11:17 +0000
      Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? DeMarcus <use_my_alias_here@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 14:13 +0200
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-22 12:47 +0000
          Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-22 13:21 +0000
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? DeMarcus <use_my_alias_here@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 15:34 +0200
              Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-23 15:32 +0000
    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-22 13:12 +0000
      Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? DeMarcus <use_my_alias_here@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 15:45 +0200
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-27 18:59 +0000
    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2011-09-22 11:51 -0700
      Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 12:23 -0700
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? DeMarcus <use_my_alias_here@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-23 10:36 +0200
          Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 22:39 -0700
      Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 11:26 +0100
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-23 20:30 +0900
          Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 14:06 +0100
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid> - 2011-09-23 09:25 -0400
              Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-23 09:37 -0700
              Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 20:43 +0100
                Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-26 10:34 +0000
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-24 05:06 +0900
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 07:39 -0700
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-23 12:09 -0500
          Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 19:44 +0100
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-25 19:03 +0000
    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-09-22 12:36 -0700
      Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 11:11 +0100
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-23 22:56 +1200
          Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 12:11 +0100
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 08:46 +1200
              Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 21:55 +0100
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Edek <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 22:59 +0200
              Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 21:53 +0100
                Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 11:05 +1300
                  Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-25 13:00 +0100
                    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Edek <edek.pienkowski@gmail.com> - 2011-09-25 15:43 +0200
                    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 07:54 -0700
                    Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 08:15 +1300
                      Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> - 2011-09-25 21:26 -0700
                        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 17:32 +1300
                        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-09-26 17:10 +0900
                Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? yatremblay@bel1lin202.(none) (Yannick Tremblay) - 2011-09-26 11:04 +0000
        Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 07:45 -0700
          Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-25 19:28 +0100
            Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 02:03 -0700
              Re: Is there a term for all tasks around programming? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 12:43 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#10431

Miles Bader wrote:

> I don't think "railroad engineer" is abuse/grandstanding/etc, just a
> very old term...

It might not have been in a very long time in the past, where train 
operators were forced to have an intimate understanding of how their machine 
worked and how to maintain and repair it, and had to carry the 
responsibility of maintaining a specific branch of a country's logistic 
system. 

Nowadays the responsibility of a train operator isn't much different than 
the responsibilities of a truck driver or a bus driver, and it wouldn't be 
reasonable to consider any of those activities as being engineering fields.  

Nevertheless, by definition an engineer is someone who creates something, 
and keeping trains on time isn't much of a creation.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10432

On 9/23/2011 9:06 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Miles Bader wrote:
>
>> I don't think "railroad engineer" is abuse/grandstanding/etc, just a
>> very old term...
>
> It might not have been in a very long time in the past, where train
> operators were forced to have an intimate understanding of how their machine
> worked and how to maintain and repair it, and had to carry the
> responsibility of maintaining a specific branch of a country's logistic
> system.
>
> Nowadays the responsibility of a train operator isn't much different than
> the responsibilities of a truck driver or a bus driver, and it wouldn't be
> reasonable to consider any of those activities as being engineering fields.
>
> Nevertheless, by definition an engineer is someone who creates something,

By whose definition, yours?  Engineer is a person who's in charge of 
dealing with engines, machines.  Most often it concerns solving 
problems, not creating anything (unless you call solving problems 
"creating a solution").

> and keeping trains on time isn't much of a creation.

It's rewarding to denigrate somebody else's work.  Makes one's own 
activities seem more important...  Keep it up!

V
-- 
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10436

On Sep 23, 9:25 am, Victor Bazarov <v.baza...@comcast.invalid> wrote:
> On 9/23/2011 9:06 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> > Miles Bader wrote:
>
> >> I don't think "railroad engineer" is abuse/grandstanding/etc, just a
> >> very old term...
>
> > It might not have been in a very long time in the past, where train
> > operators were forced to have an intimate understanding of how their machine
> > worked and how to maintain and repair it, and had to carry the
> > responsibility of maintaining a specific branch of a country's logistic
> > system.
>
> > Nowadays the responsibility of a train operator isn't much different than
> > the responsibilities of a truck driver or a bus driver, and it wouldn't be
> > reasonable to consider any of those activities as being engineering fields.
>
> > Nevertheless, by definition an engineer is someone who creates something,
>
> By whose definition, yours?

Yes, pretty much Rui's own personsal definition that noone else
cares about. It's much more productive to stick to, say, IEEE's
definition of "software engineering" and ECPD for the definition
of engineering.

On a more philosophical note, below is a germane dictum of mine
pointing out the beautiful duality between, and the purposes of
science and engineering:

   "Science applies control to gain knowledge.
    Engineering applies knowledge to gain control."

KHD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10439

Victor Bazarov wrote:

> By whose definition, yours?  

No, history, etymology and reality.  The term "engineer" has it's origins in 
the latin word "ingeniator", which means to design/create/devise.  It would 
be fairly odd to refer to an occupation which never designed/created 
anything as something that did precisely the opposite.


> Engineer is a person who's in charge of
> dealing with engines, machines.  

So, then a person who rides a bicycle must be a bicycle engineer, a driver's 
license must be an automotive engineering license, and a carny who operates 
a ride must be a carnival ride engineer.  Meanwhile, environmental, 
chemical, transportation, biomedical and even civil engineers must be 
defrauding the world with their title by not being in charge of dealing with 
any specific engine or machine.


> Most often it concerns solving
> problems, not creating anything (unless you call solving problems
> "creating a solution").

Archimedes must have been a fraud, then, along with all that people who 
waste their time expecting to be an engineer by studying mechanical 
engineering and ending up designing stuff such as engines.  Instead, they 
should've just take a job operating a locomotive.


> It's rewarding to denigrate somebody else's work.  Makes one's own
> activities seem more important...  Keep it up!

Stating that an occupation isn't engineering is not denigrating somebody or 
their work.  It can only be seen as a way to denigrate someone if that 
person happens to desperately want a fancy title to feel better about 
themselves, and this is just wrong.  There is a reason why society felt the 
need to punish those who misappropriated professional titles.

The odd thing about your comment is that in some circles, particularly hard 
science and math, engineering is looked down on.  I guess one man's trash is 
another man's treasure.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10509

In article <4e7ce154$0$16762$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
Rui Maciel  <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Stating that an occupation isn't engineering is not denigrating somebody or 
>their work.  It can only be seen as a way to denigrate someone if that 
>person happens to desperately want a fancy title to feel better about 
>themselves, and this is just wrong.  There is a reason why society felt the 
>need to punish those who misappropriated professional titles.
>
>The odd thing about your comment is that in some circles, particularly hard 
>science and math, engineering is looked down on.  I guess one man's trash is 
>another man's treasure.

When I was studying Electrical Engineering at University, some of our
courses were shared with the Physics department and the Physic
Engineering department.  (or is it Engineering Physics? "Genie
Physique" in French). The difference between the three courses (in a
jokey biased way) was said to be:

Physics: It doesn't work but they know why.
Physic Engineering: It doesn't work and they don't know why.
Electrical Engineering: It works but they don't know why.

I guess that was meant to denigrate Physic Engineering.  But
to this day, I am still not sure if Physics or Electrical Engineering
came out the worse of the other two :-)

Yannick

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10440

Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
>> I don't think "railroad engineer" is abuse/grandstanding/etc, just a
>> very old term...
>
> It might not have been in a very long time in the past, where train 
> operators were forced to have an intimate understanding of how their machine 
> worked and how to maintain and repair it, and had to carry the 
> responsibility of maintaining a specific branch of a country's logistic 
> system. 
>
> Nowadays the responsibility of a train operator isn't much different than 
> the responsibilities of a truck driver or a bus driver, and it wouldn't be 
> reasonable to consider any of those activities as being engineering fields.  

Sure; nobody claims otherwise.  Nonetheless "engineer" is common term
used for a train driver, for historical reasons.

> Nevertheless, by definition an engineer is someone who creates something, 
> and keeping trains on time isn't much of a creation.

Language is messy.  Old terms stay around (especially in the form of
particular idioms), even if they seem confusing / inconsistent / blah
blah.

I'm sure it would be convenient if one could simply refactor and clean
up usage as terms and meanings shift over time, to keep things neat
and consistent.  But that's just not the way language works...

-Miles

-- 
Arrest, v. Formally to detain one accused of unusualness.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10469

On Sep 23, 2:06 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Miles Bader wrote:


> > I don't think "railroad engineer" is abuse/grandstanding/etc, just a
> > very old term...
>
> It might not have been in a very long time in the past, where train
> operators were forced to have an intimate understanding of how their machine
> worked and how to maintain and repair it, and had to carry the
> responsibility of maintaining a specific branch of a country's logistic
> system.
>
> Nowadays the responsibility of a train operator isn't much different than
> the responsibilities of a truck driver or a bus driver, and it wouldn't be
> reasonable to consider any of those activities as being engineering fields.  
>
> Nevertheless, by definition an engineer is someone who creates something,

and software isn't "something"?

> and keeping trains on time isn't much of a creation.

I'd have thought many of things that happen around programming had an
"engineering quality" to them. Requirements Capture, Configuation
Control, Verification and Validation. I'll agree many "software
engineers" don't do these things well but "softwae engineering"
*could* and sometimes *is* a valid description of what is done to
produce large complex high integrity bits of software.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10437

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:26:15 +0100, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com>
wrote:

>red floyd wrote:
>
>>> Or is there already a common name?
>> 
>> Software Engineering
>
>Among the tasks which were pointed out, I fail to find a single task which 
>can be labelled as engineering.  This means that, although some software 
>developers might wish to be labelled as engineers, that doesn't mean it's 
>true.  
>
>This reminds me how the so called "railroad engineers" are often used as a 
>reference of a professional practice which abuses the term "engineer" as a 
>form of grandstanding, while avoiding other terms which are more appropriate 
>to the task they actually perform such as "train operator" or "train 
>driver".  The thing is, even though the so called "railroad engineers" are 
>clearly not engineers, their job actually requires a level of 
>responsibility, and therefore civil and criminal liability, far greater than 
>that which is required for a typical software developer job.  Therefore, if 
>it doesn't make sense to label a "train operator" as an engineer then why 
>would it make sense to try to label a software developer as one?


I'm pretty sure the use of "engineer" for someone who operates an
engine is rather older than the main modern sense of a qualified
professional practicing a branch of Engineering.  Nautical use dates
back to the first steam powered ships.  The approximately
contemporaneous application to locomotive operators seems fairly
obvious and reasonable in that context.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10438

Robert Wessel wrote:

> I'm pretty sure the use of "engineer" for someone who operates an
> engine is rather older than the main modern sense of a qualified
> professional practicing a branch of Engineering.  

I believe we can agree that engineering, as a discipline, precedes the 
production of engines which required an specialized operator.  Also, I 
believe that we can also agree that the need for a society to impose a 
system that ensured the competence of those who carried the title of 
"engineer" and also punish those who either failed to meet the requirements 
or tried to defraud people's expectations is something which arrived much 
after term "engineer" was coined.  Therefore, if we agree on this, we can 
also easily agre that comparing the coining of a misnomer with the inception 
of the first legal qualifications, and expecting it to carry any meaning, 
doesn't make sense.


> Nautical use dates
> back to the first steam powered ships.  The approximately
> contemporaneous application to locomotive operators seems fairly
> obvious and reasonable in that context.

Well, the thing is, the field of engineering, along with the meaning of the 
term, didn't suddenly popped into existence after the first steam engine was 
placed in a ship.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10487

Rui Maciel wrote:

> Robert Wessel wrote:
[snip]
>> Nautical use dates
>> back to the first steam powered ships.  The approximately
>> contemporaneous application to locomotive operators seems fairly
>> obvious and reasonable in that context.
>
> Well, the thing is, the field of engineering, along with the meaning of the 
> term, didn't suddenly popped into existence after the first steam engine was 
> placed in a ship.


As far as I can tell, the word "engineer", as applied to a
profession, originally referred to an operator of an "engine".  In
particular, a military engine (e.g. catapult).

This doesn't make the etymology you posted elsethread wrong.  The term
"engine" originally referred to the product of the design / creation /
invention process.  But it does point out some of the dangers of using
an (very incomplete) etymology to try to determine what a word should
mean now.

Martin Shobe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10401

On Sep 22, 5:25 am, DeMarcus <use_my_alias_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We all do software development. Some even do software architecture. But
> is there a common name for all the things around software development?
>
> With things around software development I mean for instance:
>
> * Version controlling, e.g. cvs, svn, git, etc.
> * Documentation, e.g. Doxygen, etc.
> * Bug- and issue tracking, e.g. Bugzilla, Jira, etc.
> * Unit testing, e.g. TDD, etc.
> * Build systems, e.g. TeamCity, etc.
>
> Is there a common name for all that kind of work above? I couldn't find
> any on the net so I just invented two alternatives to start with:
>
> Development Groundwork
> or
> Development Support
>
> Or is there already a common name?

Well:

   "Software Engineering"

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering

is the complete set. And "engineering" at least connotes robust/
reliable/solid etc which requires those "surrounding", as you put it,
practices. At it's core engineering is about eliminating or greatly
reducing human error in the application of science to control.

KHD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10420

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> Well:
> 
> "Software Engineering"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering
> 
> is the complete set. And "engineering" at least connotes robust/
> reliable/solid etc which requires those "surrounding", as you put it,
> practices. At it's core engineering is about eliminating or greatly
> reducing human error in the application of science to control.

The field of engineering involves a considerable expectation of a safe and 
defect-free product, to the point where engineers, when recognized as such, 
are held civil and criminally liable for any problem which may arise from 
their work.  This is the main reason why civilized societies put 
restrictions on who can and cannot label themselves an engineer (i.e., 
engineering licenses), and consequently who can be employed to positions 
which require the level of expertise and responsibility which is expected 
from an engineer.

The practice of software development does not have such responsibility nor 
is a software developer held liable for any defect in their work.  
Therefore, no professional license is required by society to perform this 
job.  This means that software development, although a highly technical 
field, is not engineering, and those who are employed to churn out code 
aren't engineers.  And this is a good thing.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10424

On 09/23/11 10:11 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
> The field of engineering involves a considerable expectation of a safe and
> defect-free product, to the point where engineers, when recognized as such,
> are held civil and criminally liable for any problem which may arise from
> their work.  This is the main reason why civilized societies put
> restrictions on who can and cannot label themselves an engineer (i.e.,
> engineering licenses), and consequently who can be employed to positions
> which require the level of expertise and responsibility which is expected
> from an engineer.
>
> The practice of software development does not have such responsibility nor
> is a software developer held liable for any defect in their work.
> Therefore, no professional license is required by society to perform this
> job.  This means that software development, although a highly technical
> field, is not engineering, and those who are employed to churn out code
> aren't engineers.  And this is a good thing.

So those of us with Electronic Engineering degrees (including members of 
professional bodies) aren't engineers either?

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10427

Ian Collins wrote:

> So those of us with Electronic Engineering degrees (including members of
> professional bodies) aren't engineers either?

It really depends on what you are doing.  Not everything a 
civil/structural/mechanical/aeronautical/etc engineer does is engineering. 

Nevertheless, the level of restrictions and assurances that a society 
requires in order to grant someone the ability to exercise the practice of 
"engineering" (i.e., the license), along with the civil and criminal 
responsibility it imposes on those who practice it, is a good litmus test to 
see if a field is in fact engineering.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10442

On 09/23/11 11:11 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> So those of us with Electronic Engineering degrees (including members of
>> professional bodies) aren't engineers either?
>
> It really depends on what you are doing.  Not everything a
> civil/structural/mechanical/aeronautical/etc engineer does is engineering.
>
> Nevertheless, the level of restrictions and assurances that a society
> requires in order to grant someone the ability to exercise the practice of
> "engineering" (i.e., the license), along with the civil and criminal
> responsibility it imposes on those who practice it, is a good litmus test to
> see if a field is in fact engineering.

You have a very weird view of the world.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10446

Ian Collins wrote:

> On 09/23/11 11:11 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>>> So those of us with Electronic Engineering degrees (including members of
>>> professional bodies) aren't engineers either?
>>
>> It really depends on what you are doing.  Not everything a
>> civil/structural/mechanical/aeronautical/etc engineer does is
>> engineering.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the level of restrictions and assurances that a society
>> requires in order to grant someone the ability to exercise the practice
>> of "engineering" (i.e., the license), along with the civil and criminal
>> responsibility it imposes on those who practice it, is a good litmus test
>> to see if a field is in fact engineering.
> 
> You have a very weird view of the world.

It's not a particular view of the world.  It's the real world.  Once you 
look into it you will be able to understand.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10443

On 09/23/2011 01:11 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Ian Collins wrote:
>
>> So those of us with Electronic Engineering degrees (including members of
>> professional bodies) aren't engineers either?
>
> It really depends on what you are doing.  Not everything a
> civil/structural/mechanical/aeronautical/etc engineer does is engineering.
>
> Nevertheless, the level of restrictions and assurances that a society
> requires in order to grant someone the ability to exercise the practice of
> "engineering" (i.e., the license), along with the civil and criminal
> responsibility it imposes on those who practice it, is a good litmus test to
> see if a field is in fact engineering.

Does (or should) the liability extend to "Supporting Engineers"?
"Junior"? "Apprentice"? Are such titles common in the
fields you are referring to?

BTW, in "some" situations programming errors cost money. One does
not need to define liability by means of creating
law, it can be written down in a contract. You seem to
be defining "engineering" by including  "criminal liability",
along with civil liability, implying that people's life or
health are in danger [because of engineers actions or
lack thereof]. Apparently not all fields of engineering
may cause a direct threat to people health and safety, for
example reading human writing is both usually not reliable
enough to count upon in emergency situations and an
engineering accomplishment based on some maths and programming
methods, hence it suits the general definition and not yours.

I think it should be a criminal offence to make such oversimplified
claims as yours on a mailing list dedicated to engineering; or
maybe you are right that software makers should be responsible
for bugs, I've heard of some EU efforts towards such laws, which
are meant to protect consumers; they are not meant to result
in criminal punishments though.

As for your other points:
> Instead, they
> should've just take a job operating a locomotive.
             ^^^^^
>
>> > It's rewarding to denigrate somebody else's work.  Makes one's own
>> > activities seem more important...  Keep it up!
> Stating that an occupation isn't engineering is not denigrating somebody or
> their work.

You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same message.

>> Engineer is a person who's in charge of
>> > dealing with engines, machines.
> So, then a person who rides a bicycle must be a bicycle engineer, a driver's
> license must be an automotive engineering license, and a carny who operates
> a ride must be a carnival ride engineer.

I would call a person who tests engines an engineer. And a craftsman at
the same time. (if that is the right word, I'm not English). And that
was the topic as far as I am following it, not John Smith using the
great calculator software you have written (please do not think now
about engineers using calculators, ok?)

As my own observation I may add that giving funny titles to people
writing software might be part of social engineering, making the
monkey at the keyboard feel happy, which is a step towards
getting the best monkeys' productivity ;), and has nothing to do
with any social contract nor, ugh, licence. The world did
not change at all, people love nice titles.

Edek

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10444

Edek wrote:

> On 09/23/2011 01:11 PM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>> Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>>> So those of us with Electronic Engineering degrees (including members of
>>> professional bodies) aren't engineers either?
>>
>> It really depends on what you are doing.  Not everything a
>> civil/structural/mechanical/aeronautical/etc engineer does is
>> engineering.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the level of restrictions and assurances that a society
>> requires in order to grant someone the ability to exercise the practice
>> of "engineering" (i.e., the license), along with the civil and criminal
>> responsibility it imposes on those who practice it, is a good litmus test
>> to see if a field is in fact engineering.
> 
> Does (or should) the liability extend to "Supporting Engineers"?
> "Junior"? "Apprentice"? Are such titles common in the
> fields you are referring to?

Professional licenses are employed to guarantee a minimum level of 
competence in a given field, in order to provide the public with an 
assurance that those who pass themselves as a member of a specific 
professional field don't defraud those who require their services.  Some 
jurisdictions may impose other requirements on top of this.  For example, in 
some jurisdictions a civil engineer is only granted the right to manage 
construction work that exceeds a specific monetary value if he can 
demonstrate that, beyond academic qualifications and a professional license, 
he has enough experience in that field.


> BTW, in "some" situations programming errors cost money. One does
> not need to define liability by means of creating
> law, it can be written down in a contract. You seem to
> be defining "engineering" by including  "criminal liability",
> along with civil liability, implying that people's life or
> health are in danger [because of engineers actions or
> lack thereof]. 

If you read what I wrote you will notice that I referred to the value that 
society places on the assurance that a specific professional can be 
considered an engineer and therefore perform engineering-related tasks.  
This need for assurance goes well beyond that which can be had through civil 
contracts between two parties.  The main value which societies place on 
engineering licenses is that they grant the state the ability to enforce 
society's interests with force of law.  An imposter who tries to pass 
himself as an engineer can be held liable for his criminal acts, as also an 
engineer who fails his responsibilities.  The latter also leads to 
disciplinary actions that end with the suspension of the engineer's license, 
which means that he is no longer able to do any job which, due to their 
requirements, society reserves to engineers.



> Apparently not all fields of engineering
> may cause a direct threat to people health and safety, for
> example reading human writing is both usually not reliable
> enough to count upon in emergency situations and an
> engineering accomplishment based on some maths and programming
> methods, hence it suits the general definition and not yours.

Science and math isn't engineering, and I'm sure that I wouldn't need to 
point out that writing code also isn't engineering.


> I think it should be a criminal offence to make such oversimplified
> claims as yours on a mailing list dedicated to engineering; 

Which mailing list are we talking about?  Are you referring to 
comp.lang.c++?  Because claiming that this newsgroup is "dedicated to 
engineering", or even insinuating that writing C++ code is engineering, 
would be an even more glaring mistake.


> or
> maybe you are right that software makers should be responsible
> for bugs, I've heard of some EU efforts towards such laws, which
> are meant to protect consumers; they are not meant to result
> in criminal punishments though.

I haven't made such a claim, nor I believe I will ever do, mainly because it 
goes against society's best interests to increase the costs associated with 
developing software.  Society doesn't grind to a halt, nor does it suffer 
any relevant losses, if a text editor segfaults or if an OS throws a blue 
screen of death.


> As for your other points:
>> Instead, they
>> should've just take a job operating a locomotive.
>              ^^^^^
>>
>>> > It's rewarding to denigrate somebody else's work.  Makes one's own
>>> > activities seem more important...  Keep it up!
>> Stating that an occupation isn't engineering is not denigrating somebody
>> or their work.
> 
> You seem to be contradicting yourself in the same message.

There is no contradiction.  If the the main goal of an hypothetical 
individual was to become an engineer (a silly goal, to begin with) and if he 
was presented with the choice of going through 5 years of college, being 
force-fed calculus, linear algebra, probability, statistics, physics and a 
bunch of technical subjects, or going through a 1 or 2-year course on how to 
operate a locomotive then the second option would be, by far, the easiest 
one.  Where do you see any contradiction or even any derogatory comment? 


>>> Engineer is a person who's in charge of
>>> > dealing with engines, machines.
>> So, then a person who rides a bicycle must be a bicycle engineer, a
>> driver's license must be an automotive engineering license, and a carny
>> who operates a ride must be a carnival ride engineer.
> 
> I would call a person who tests engines an engineer. And a craftsman at
> the same time. (if that is the right word, I'm not English). And that
> was the topic as far as I am following it, not John Smith using the
> great calculator software you have written (please do not think now
> about engineers using calculators, ok?)

There are a lot of engineers (mainly mechanical, but also a fair share of 
aeronautical, civil and others) who spend their careers designing, testing 
and tweaking engines, specific engine parts or associated components.  On 
the other hand, this doesn't mean that a guy in a shed tinkering with a 
home-made sterling engine is also an engineer.


> As my own observation I may add that giving funny titles to people
> writing software might be part of social engineering, making the
> monkey at the keyboard feel happy, which is a step towards
> getting the best monkeys' productivity ;), and has nothing to do
> with any social contract nor, ugh, licence. The world did
> not change at all, people love nice titles.

Yes, that is true.  There are people who appear to live for this sort of 
stuff.  Yet, this represents a problem if the title is used as a way for a 
society ensure a minimum level of competence on a given field, and some 
people tried to defraud society by passing themselves off far more competent 
than they actually are.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10447

On 09/25/11 09:53 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
> There are a lot of engineers (mainly mechanical, but also a fair share of
> aeronautical, civil and others) who spend their careers designing, testing
> and tweaking engines, specific engine parts or associated components.

So the Electronics Engineers and programmers who design, test and tweak 
the control system that make those engines work are just lackeys?

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#10458

Ian Collins wrote:

> On 09/25/11 09:53 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>>
>> There are a lot of engineers (mainly mechanical, but also a fair share of
>> aeronautical, civil and others) who spend their careers designing,
>> testing and tweaking engines, specific engine parts or associated
>> components.
> 
> So the Electronics Engineers and programmers who design, test and tweak
> the control system that make those engines work are just lackeys?

It really depends on the level of competence and responsibility which 
society requires from those who wish to do a specific job.  For example, do 
you believe that someone who manages to develop spreadsheets with 
conditional statements is, due to that, an engineer?  What about someone who 
manages to put together a shell script/batch file?  What about putting 
together a "hello world" program in visual basic?  Or developing a tic-tac-
toe program in Python?  Or developing a text editor in C++?  Does the 
ability to perform any of those tasks, on it's own, bestows onto anyone the 
right to call what he does as being engineering?  Do you consider someone 
who managed to learn how to write some C++ code in his spare time to be an 
engineer?  

And regarding your demeaning insinuation that those who aren't engineers are 
somehow "lackeys", do you believe that a plumber, who is given the plans 
(made by an engineer) for a domestic water network and is expected to 
implement it, is an engineer, just a lackey or some other thing? 

The thing is, the requirements for someone to be considered an engineer are 
similar in nature to the requirements that society imposes on who is and who 
is not a physician or a surgeon or a dentist or a lawyer.  Those titles are 
reserved to those among us which are granted the right to perform services 
which require a high level of training, competence and responsibility.  If 
society doesn't require that a task should be reserved to a carefully 
selected group of people in order to safeguard society's best interests then 
no such demands are put in place.


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web