Hacker News Reader

Comment by saraid216 | Hacker News Reader

Not really. That kind of environment leads to a lot of prejudiced thinking. You see it happen in the rest of tech, too: people who have the screws twisted on them, willingly or not, cope one way or another... and most people cope by reinforcing their self-esteem with delusions of superiority.

That's one reason why we have religious wars over operating systems and programming languages and tool sets that you don't see in other engineering cultures. (And also why more relaxed companies focus more on the mantra of "right tool for the job".) Since I don't touch gamedev with an eleven-foot-pole, it's not clear to me how much of a cost has been incurred by this.

And it's this exact kind of thing which lets unexamined biases manifest in the hiring process, leading to an overpopulation of white males.

View on HN

Two tangential points I want to hit quickly.

First, most software developers are taught "computer science" (or an imitation of it) in their formal education, not engineering.

Second, software is mostly not engineering. Engineering is very measurable. But software includes a lot of design and craftsmanship. If software dev. were restricted only to the portion that could reasonably be called pure engineering it would be a very, very small subset of mostly systems code. Indeed, a good hunk of software dev. could properly be called merely arts and crafts, under such a strict interpretation.

I think this explains some of the religious wars, because the debates are more aesthetic such as "do you prefer charcoal or pencil" than engineering "which is better steel or aluminum", because purely engineering questions tend to have very much more straightforward answers.

So if it isn't science, and isn't engineering, what is it closest to in terms of other endeavors?

My opinion is that "Software Engineering" is an artisan trade. What it isn't is based on science. What is rigorous is usually based around theoretical mathematics.

Let me put it like this: there are very very few designs in software where there are limitations that are based on intrinsics. Whereas if you talk with a chemist, it's very clear that there are actual properties underlying what they do, and these physical properties do things like go "bang" when you screw up. Or if you're building a circuit, you use the underlying equations of the resistors and other components to drive the design. Very little of that exists in computer science.

This doesn't make what we do immoral or bad or demeaning. But in my opinion, this conflation with physcial-based sciences produces a confusion of the mind.

I'm prone to consider computer science "algorithmic mathematics" and quality software engineering "software craftsmanship". It reminds me far more of house building than circuit design.

I'd say artisanship, craftwork, architecture, or industrial design are all much closer to what we do than either of those.

Sorcery. It's poetry that has to actually accomplish something.

Specifically, datamancy.

Writing.

Math. That explains the endless debates on aesthetics, the difficulty of measuring productivity, and the enormous spectrum of productivity.

The reason other engineering cultures don't have religious wars is because they have been around for longer than computer and software engineering have. As a result, they are dominated by old, experienced industry veterans who have learned long ago the value of using the right tool for the job.

In contrast, software especially has a lot of new, young blood (average age in software is significantly lower), and one thing young people love doing is claiming superiority over each other. And the best way of doing this is via religious wars about operating systems, programming languages, etc.

Whenever I hear someone claim "such and such programming language is the best!!!" they are either 25, or they are older but they hang out with 25 year olds and their maturity has regressed to that level.

Er, not saying there isn't a cost incurred (or, rather, a potential gain ignored) by having a homogenous environment, but...

and most people cope by reinforcing their self-esteem with delusions of superiority

That I would like to see a source on.

EDIT:

I will go ahead and say that the article makes the point that such labor has a 'dehumanizing' effect... and in such condition, bonds between people in the same situation who aren't part of the cause are usually strengthened, in my experience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com