Hacker News Reader

Comment by tracker1 | Hacker News Reader

Most software and for that matter, most software developers don't need that level of detail. It's the difference between building a nice doghouse and a skyscraper. The problem is too few know the difference, fewer still know how to hire properly, and many seem to think that one developer is interchangeable with any other.

Of course tethering to education requirements doesn't mean much. I think a formal guild where you build your representative value by the endorsement and status of others, and if you fail, not only are you brought down, but those that endorsed you will lose cred as well. Setting up such a system would be difficult and take time, and I'm unsure if it would ever reach critical mass.

Also, unlike doctors and other fields, I don't think you should have to be formally licensed to work in software. Most initial developers are, were, and continue to be cross trained from other fields.

View on HN

>It's the difference between building a nice doghouse and a skyscraper. The problem is too few know the difference

That’s what my question is about!

Building engineer knows or reads N54.s-1e/624 “on public safety in a first floor lobby” to design it. It may specify various requirements like no sharp edges, glass walls need stripes on them, non-slippy floors, etc. Then when they need to add an electronic lock to all main entries, they contract with a seller whose locks are licensed with LS9-41.3/FLL. Then firefight inspection validates these entries for public safety again, involving standardized legal rules.

I don’t even try to describe the actual building from the ground to the concrete structure process, because that will be too naive. Lots of standards, requirements, ready-to-use plans, or a project approval process that requires half a year for a shallow review of all documents in many controlling departments.

What I’m interested in, is there such a level of engineering in software at all. I don’t know about anyone who did something like a regular building engineer does at the / before the construction site, but in software. Is there such a thing like Software Engineering at all? All popular software doesn’t seem to have signs of no-dog-house, when you read their code.

I'm not sure it answers your question but in software, the requirements are almost never codified up front because extracting the rules is part of the project.

In terms of the dog-house, there's that rule "Build one to throw away". Since no two software projects are similar, the only way to truly know what you're building is to build it, see what works, throw it away, then build it properly.

Part of what makes software so good is that you _can_ upgrade the skyscraper while people are in it, metaphorically hardening floors or adding new levels.

I think the software metaphor for your building codes is basically "Software coding standards and guidelines" and most large platforms will have them. For example https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/seccodeguide-139067....

And yes, good software engineers are expected to know those practices.

Aerospace, higher end weapons systems and most medical hardware+software... It's usually when in conjunction with life/death physicality that these things come into play.

Unfortunately, the efforts on some of these systems are much harder to work through in practice than something created more organically.

This is also where non-software companies get into trouble trying to do software projects. They think they're building a house so they hire a carpenter. They don't realize they're also going to need a general contractor and maybe a carpet guy.

I think a formal guild where you build your representative value by the endorsement and status of others, and if you fail, not only are you brought down, but those that endorsed you will lose cred as well.

You mean like, a tech firm? Or a software consultancy business? :)

No, I mean a guild... Closest modern representations would be somewhere between a professional board and a union. Bob was trained by the great Tim, who created Foo and Baz. Tim endorsed Bob as a Journeyman from an apprentice. Steve and Phil (both master level) later endorsed Bob as a Master craftsman.

Bob screws up big time... complaint filed with guild board for review... board revokes Bob's master status (back to journeyman) and notes on Steve and Phil's record.

If Steve and/or Phil get too many hits, they lose their status as well.

My point is that what you're describing is a firm, just with different terms.

Bob was trained by the great manager Tim. Tim endorsed Bob from internship to junior engineer to senior architect. Steve and Phil both later recommended Bob for promotion to CTO.

Then Bob screws up big time. The board of directors gets involved. Bob is fired and eventually gets a new job as a middle-manager or lower in some other firm, or if the screwup is large enough, takes early retirement.

The "guild" is doing the same things as a company does. But judging skill, success and failure is quite subjective. That's why we need so many competing firms to get results. A single guild would be like everyone working for a single company. It'd yield very poor results.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com