Comment by gerdesj | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gerdesj | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"All other engineering disciplines are ultimately limited to building things in (at most) 3 euclidean dimensions."

Trying to diminish engineering disciplines that have existed for millennia by imposing an arbitrary constraint of "3 euclidean" is pretty wank. Let's drop silly constraints.

Do you have any idea how complicated concrete is? It's just sand, aggregate, cement and water. Exothermic reaction. Job done.

Let's look at wood ... the stuff is a bundle of fibres and stuff and yet we build huge structures out of it. Who on earth knows how or why plywood works? Britain had several all wooden aircraft during WWII - the Mosquito was so good that Herman Goering declared that it was worth two kills.

Steel - its just iron with other stuff.

Software engineering is growing up gradually but please don't be a dick towards people who practice disciplines that invented things and concepts you rely on and live within.

For example the concept of a token that allows you to do something exclusively - " exclusive lock" - was popularised by early railways. A single track should have only one train on it and after a few accidents the idea of an exclusive token was "invented" that could be passed across to the next exclusive user.

When you say hyperbolic, you should be aware of how close that is to hyperbole.

Not sure where you're getting that from my post.

The point is that all other engineering disciplines don't have enough design space to make a true mess of their projects. Software by comparison hasn't been limited in its design space since the first super computers started having gigabytes of ram memory in the late 1980s.

That doesn't mean that either discipline is better or worse, it means they are different. Other than math there is no other field which has as much freedom when it comes to basic design choices as software engineering, and math proofs are even more of a mess than software programs, to the point that pretty much every non-formally verified proof is wrong in some way.

Or to put another way: would railways be more or less complex if we allowed them to be embedded in a higher dimensional space instead of being essentially a 2d network on the earth surface? If you don't think so I'd like you to think about what a train schedule would look like on hyper graphs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergraph

I say this as someone who loves software: software is not special.

Every discipline has infinite depth.

Railways in 2D may seem simple but there the simplicity may be intentional. Just like when you write software that runs things like planes, trains, or medical devices, all of a sudden you’re writing in C, without recursion, without function pointers, without using the heap, etc.

Look at the concord airplane. A mess of a project.

Look at anything in biology and human health. The complexity is unimaginable compared to software.

Edit: reduced emotions

I don’t think the comment was meant derisive like you and the other commenter are interpreting… relax?

Thanks, I edited to assume the best interpretation of the thread.

Since I want programming to be inclusive and not have a bad rap publicly, when a peer says “software is better than all other disciplines because of X, Y, Z” I want to convince them otherwise.

As a leader and teacher with more grey hair every day, I feel this responsibility

>As a leader and teacher with more grey hair every day, I feel this responsibility

You should probably do less of that since:

1). That's not what any of my posts said.

2). My degree says mathematical physics and not computer science or software engineering.

3). A field where you're tone policed by the tone deaf is the opposite of welcoming and inclusive.

Since I’m already in the thread defending you against the other poster, I’ll add here

U/callc appears to be reacting to the public perception of how this thread would read externally, you appear to be reacting based on hard logic, which is unpalatable to most of the public.

I think you two are talking past each other

> I think you two are talking past each other

This is why steelmanning a comment before arguing against it should be a rule.

> I say this as someone who loves software: software is not special.

Based on your comment I’m interpreting “special” as “better”, or “harder”.

I interpreted the comment you replying to as software is “special” as in it is “different” and the differences require different solutions than other fields have.

Like when I talk to my civil engineer friends I only on the surface comprehend what they are dealing with when they need to move literal thousands of tons of mass. I can try and make an analogy to my own experience with bandwidth and memory, but nothing will be a 1:1 comparison with the amount of energy used when the physical mass of the entire internet is within an order of magnitude of a strawberry.

Simultaneously my civil engineers friends don’t have to deal with a situation of one of their apprentices making a logical mistake based on a single missed `!` and their features suddenly using up 100% of all resources everywhere

Not op, but I'm clearly reading their message differently than you.

Any type of physical engineering is based on hard facts, data, and well established historical research, mathematics, and more.

I've seen many an electrical engineer say, "fuck it, this is too hard and pays too little" and so they pivoted into software engineering quite easily.

On the other hand I've never seen the opposite. Real engineering is hard because you actually have to get shit perfect. The wrong o rings and real people die.

There are a few real software engineering shops and real software engineers, but 90% are just slinging shit together for a bunch of enterprise CRUD and they are all just one bad deploy away from disaster.

How are you reading noosphr’s comments?

I read it as: “software is special because its design space is high dimensional, compared to all other engineering disciplines which are limited to 3 spatial dimensions. Large design space leads to ability to mess things up.”

I wholeheartedly agree with you: “real” engineering (where lives are on the line) is hard. Most software that is made is not to control pace makers, air plane autopilot, space shuttles, etc. When we do need to program in these life and death situations, we should look carefully at the real engineers that do this all the time (looking at you self-driving car software).

Software "design space is high dimensional" is true in that storage, latencies, processors, memory we just keep growing and growing. Given that, software should be faster and better than ever because the dimension where software lives has gotten exponentially larger and more performant. Rather than use that like responsible engineers we all started writing bloatware because it was easy and we could get away with it.

Engineering with constraints builds discipline. Maybe we are lacking as engineers in software because the constraint bar just continues to raise.

The power of software is not tied to processing power or memory, although those help a lot. Code is the deciding factor, not quite because it can be laid out wherever and have far reaching effects, but for the underlying basis for code. Software is all about leaky abstractions. It's not quite math or any sort of empirical engineering. Software models entire worlds. Excel is "just" people churning out calculations from paper spreadsheets, except now you just see the results on a screen. Pong is a ping-pong game. But I used the word "leaky" before. "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

We could always talk about stacks, AVL trees, or NLP before any meaningful conception of computers, and indeed a lot of computer science research happened when computers were still fairly primitive. Computer science and its applied form, software engineering, are about computation (data and code) and abstraction. Even computation is just a distraction at some level. There's some world with the ideal behavior that a program should abstract from, but an ideal is an ideal, so programming is often floundering to figure out what ad-hoc world the program mirrors and tweaking haphazardly. Software engineering isn't engineering not because it can't be, due to the (very real) differences of software from the physical world. It isn't engineering currently because we aren't taking control of our actions and their consequences, in all senses.

Intellectual superiority is not relevant here. Everyone has hard tasks. If you're a civil engineer, then design and build infrastructure well. If you're a programmer, then design and build programs well. Any discipline demands honesty and forthrightness in evaluating its work.

I graduated in Electrical Engineering but have worked as a Software Engineer for the last 20 years.

I totally agree with their post and get what they're saying.

Within circuits (big or small) it is possible to do some crazy stupid shit, but reality kicks in much sooner. Either because of physics or price.

Analog circuits (my specialty) are a perfect example of this. Sure I can try to cut corners and interconnect two distant parts of the circuit together in weird ways ("tight coupling" in software), but the options I will reach for are limited, and "nature" forces me to "decouple" them. With software I can just set a distant variable...

I have a Building Engineer on my team, who also moved to Software Engineering. I can ask for examples in his field too.

There's software engineering work and then there's programming.

90% of programming is enterprise CRUD, and the bar is low. Likewise, 90% of electrical work is basic circuitry with off the shelf parts: does it work and not catch fire. There are electrical engineers doing Real :TM: Engineering, but 90% or more of the work is electrician work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com