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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#10463

  What about putting
> together a "hello world" program in visual basic?

That would be a baby engineer.

> Do you consider someone
> who managed to learn how to write some C++ code in his spare time to be an
> engineer?

Required does not mean sufficient.


> 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.

There are fewer engineers in prison than car engine defects
appearing each day, same for programmers.

Edek

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

#10468

On Sep 25, 1:00 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?  

this thread was originally about more than coding. It was about all
the other things that go into producing the code. In some fields the
delivery may include a program, and that program will likely have been
coded in an HLL (like C++) and the process that produced that program
looks to me very like an engineerring process.

I accept that the term "software engineer" doesn't have the
liabilities and responsibilities that are attached to other
engineering fields. Perhaps there should be such people as "Licensed
Software Engineer" or "Professional Software Engineer". I suspect the
way around this  is that someone on the project *does* have an
engineerring license (though he may call himself an automotive or
aeronautical engineer or something).


> 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]

#10489

On 09/26/11 01:00 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> 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.

Quite.  Society requires a ABS computer to function to the same standard 
as the mechanical components in a vehicle's brakes.  Society requires 
the flight control computers to be as reliable as the aircraft's engines.

Very few modern engineering projects are single discipline.  They are 
built from a diverse range of components, both mechanical, electronic 
and software.  All of these are critical to the operation of the 
product.  All of these have to be built to the same high standards 
following the same strict engineering practices.

> 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?

Every field of engineering has shed tinkerers, we'd probably still be 
leaving in trees without them.

Do you consider James Dyson to be an engineer? How about Frank Whittle?

> 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.

Society knows very little about the individuals behind most engineering 
projects.  Society puts it's trust in the companies who produce the 
products to employ suitably qualified staff.  Unlike medical or legal 
practitioners, it is the manufacturer who ends up in the dock, not the 
individual engineer.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#10500

On Sep 25, 2:15 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 09/26/11 01:00 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Quite.  Society requires a ABS computer to function to the same standard
> as the mechanical components in a vehicle's brakes.  Society requires
> the flight control computers to be as reliable as the aircraft's engines.
>
> Very few modern engineering projects are single discipline.  They are
> built from a diverse range of components, both mechanical, electronic
> and software.  All of these are critical to the operation of the
> product.  All of these have to be built to the same high standards
> following the same strict engineering practices.
>
> > 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?
>
> Every field of engineering has shed tinkerers, we'd probably still be
> leaving in trees without them.
>
> Do you consider James Dyson to be an engineer? How about Frank Whittle?
>
> > 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.
>
> Society knows very little about the individuals behind most engineering
> projects.  Society puts it's trust in the companies who produce the
> products to employ suitably qualified staff.  Unlike medical or legal
> practitioners, it is the manufacturer who ends up in the dock, not the
> individual engineer.
>

The national motto of the United States is:
In G-d we trust.  The motto was part of our
becoming a great nation.


Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

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

#10501

On 09/26/11 05:26 PM, Ebenezer wrote:
>
> The national motto of the United States is:
> In G-d we trust.  The motto was part of our
> becoming a great nation.

With a withering debt to match!

No sound engineering practices there...

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#10505

Ebenezer <woodbrian77@gmail.com> writes:
> The national motto of the United States is: In G-d we trust.

When are they gonna get rid of that, anyway?

"E Pluribus Unum" is _vastly_ cooler, more historically resonant, and
really, more accurate.

> The motto was part of our becoming a great nation.

Hmm, not really.  The U.S. has only had an official motto since the
'50s, and lets face it, the U.S. hasn't exactly been a shining start
since then...

-Miles

-- 
Cabbage, n. A familiar kitchen-garden vegetable about as large and wise as a
man's head.

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

#10510

In article <4e7e4339$0$16765$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
Rui Maciel  <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>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.

This statement is rather confused.  You give two examples of what you
consider software bugs with minor consequences.  However, in the
modern world, the consequences of a bug in software have to potential
to dwarf almost any other traditional engineering discipline mistakes.

Society wouldn't grind to a halt either if a construction project of a
local shopping mall gets delayed because the Civil Engineer didn't do
his computations correctly, a roof collapse and they need to demolish
a large part of the building in order to restart on solid fundations. 

On the other hand, society would pretty much grind to a halt if the
software that is used to compute peoples income tax starts misbehaving
and starts sending a large amount of overdue tax claims all around the
country. 

Society would pretty much grind to a halt if a bug in fly-by-wire or
ILS caused a few aircrafts to crash.

Society could literally grind to a halt if the traffic control system
software of a major city started misbehaving.

So certainly, the difference between engineering and not engineering
can't be based solely on the potential consequences of a mistake.

Yannick

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

#10471

On Sep 23, 11:11 am, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think you'll find the emdedded people get held liable. If the brakes
on the car don't work then I suspect a defence of "we replaced
mechanical linkage with fly-by-wire consequently it was software that
caused the failure hence we cannot be held liable" would not work.

The world is not a desktop...

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

#10485

Nick Keighley wrote:

> I think you'll find the emdedded people get held liable. If the brakes
> on the car don't work then I suspect a defence of "we replaced
> mechanical linkage with fly-by-wire consequently it was software that
> caused the failure hence we cannot be held liable" would not work.

And if an electrician screws up and someone gets electrocuted he will also 
be held liable for his screwup.  Yet, that doesn't mean that an electrician 
is an engineer.

Just because a given task is technical in nature it doesn't mean it is 
engineering, and software development is clearly one of those cases.  
Similarly, it is also not architecture.  It is what it is.


> The world is not a desktop...

...nor it is supposed to be.  A software developer doesn't suddenly become 
an engineer if he targets a platform other than a desktop.


Rui Maciel

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

#10508

On Sep 25, 7:28 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> > I think you'll find the emdedded people get held liable. If the brakes
> > on the car don't work then I suspect a defence of "we replaced
> > mechanical linkage with fly-by-wire consequently it was software that
> > caused the failure hence we cannot be held liable" would not work.
>
> And if an electrician screws up and someone gets electrocuted he will also
> be held liable for his screwup.  Yet, that doesn't mean that an electrician
> is an engineer.
>
> Just because a given task is technical in nature it doesn't mean it is
> engineering, and software development is clearly one of those cases.  

argument by repetition

> Similarly, it is also not architecture.  It is what it is.
>
> > The world is not a desktop...
>
> ...nor it is supposed to be.  A software developer doesn't suddenly become
> an engineer if he targets a platform other than a desktop.

but the product is liable to be judged to a higher standard if its
controlling brakes rather than a word processor (though we'd like a
word processors to work as well...)

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

#10512

Nick Keighley wrote:

> On Sep 25, 7:28 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>> > I think you'll find the emdedded people get held liable. If the brakes
>> > on the car don't work then I suspect a defence of "we replaced
>> > mechanical linkage with fly-by-wire consequently it was software that
>> > caused the failure hence we cannot be held liable" would not work.
>>
>> And if an electrician screws up and someone gets electrocuted he will
>> also be held liable for his screwup.  Yet, that doesn't mean that an
>> electrician is an engineer.
>>
>> Just because a given task is technical in nature it doesn't mean it is
>> engineering, and software development is clearly one of those cases.
> 
> argument by repetition

And it's a shame it is necessary to repeat it.  This has been covered 
before.


>> Similarly, it is also not architecture.  It is what it is.
>>
>> > The world is not a desktop...
>>
>> ...nor it is supposed to be.  A software developer doesn't suddenly
>> become an engineer if he targets a platform other than a desktop.
> 
> but the product is liable to be judged to a higher standard if its
> controlling brakes rather than a word processor (though we'd like a
> word processors to work as well...)

Again, the contribution to the design and production of a product/service 
whose shortcomings may lead the ones responsible to be held liable does make 
an engineer out of everyone who has been involved in that project.  There 
are plenty of other technical fields who rely on technicians to develop 
important parts of a project, including in the design stage, and yet there 
is still no reason to label them with titles such as engineer or architect.  
So, why would this be any different with writing software?


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web