The problem with houses is that iteration is expensive. A lot of architectural innovations are actually a version 2. There's another building where the architect/builder learned from mistakes.
There's a big difference between "someone somewhere has done this and documented it" and "these exact builders have built 100s of these in my area." The gap between principle and practice.
Software design and engineering is very influential these days, obviously on HN. We need to remember that bits have all sorts of magic to them. One magic is refactoring, bug fixing and malleability generally. With a building, any "bug" in the initial build is usually there forever.
There is a lot of invaluable and invisible knowledge baked into decades or centuries of building tradition of each specific region.
I'm about to embark on a home building project myself. My wife keeps wanting a wood built house. In a country where there are hardly any... ...I just won't do it. no way.
If anyone is interested here are the charity that is running the course: https://www.scotlime.org/en/
> The problem with houses is that iteration is expensive. A lot of architectural innovations are actually a version 2. There's another building where the architect/builder learned from mistakes.
I think it would be super interesting and useful if different disciplines could condense that process down into relatively readable technical histories, and make those a core part of their curriculum.
I think that would be super useful in software engineering, given the frequency that people seem to reinvent the wheel, some areas seem to oscillate back and forth between the same few concepts, and the path dependence that's locked us into others.