Computer science is not engineering. Engineering involves physical items. Computer code is not a physical item.
Actually he can. It just takes much longer. A real Engineering program will teach you the methods to use when designing. The CAD tool is just a tool to make the process faster.
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I can see ChemEs having a lot of liability issues as well. I don't really know what BioEs do and EEs... they're a different species.
it's not hard to foresee software engineers encountering liability issues
If a ChemE fvcks up on something in a big chemical plant, crap blows up and things get polluted and stuff. I don't know enough about other fields besides civil/structural to comment on them so I'm basing my judgement on what I think they do.
Programmers can debug and stuff... You can't do that with a building, chemical plant, or car, period.
it's pretty rare that you'd be able to cover everything with tests... why is anything buggy at all? you can't catch them all. if a CE fvcks up, crap can blows u, and things can get polluted, etc as well. i don't know about buildings or chemical plants (i suspect there is a lot of modeling that is involved, which is analogous to testing software), but for cars and planes, they are tested out and the design is fixed/refined. what do you think wind tunnels are for?
:roll:
Using the same logic, I would probably laugh at you if you couldn't write an intepreter to interpret the HTML, the compiler that compile the language you're using to write the intepreter, ...so on...
There are different layers of abstraction and an engineer doesn't need to know them all.
My point still stands. How many times have you seen air/car accidents caused by computer problems? OK, a ECU can screw up and stop your engine I suppose. Airplanes, I don't recall that many getting into accidents because of software glitches.
On the other hand, Fatigue caused by cyclic loading isn't as easily detected and when the fuselage disintegrates, people die.
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
I don'd know if this is true with the other schools, but I had to take Math course up the ass. Mechanical Engineers stopped at around the Differential Eq stuff where the Comp Sci folks had to go way past that. Think of it this way. All it took to get a double major for the Comp Sci folks was only a couple more courses.
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I can see ChemEs having a lot of liability issues as well. I don't really know what BioEs do and EEs... they're a different species.
Liabilities for an EE? - There are many. Design something that won't go up in flames for example. Design stuff that has to work for 30 years without failing. Too much to list on a forum.
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: mugs
Says the guy who apparantly isn't a software developer.
We've gone from "I don't see a programmer dude's failure will lead to fatalities" to "you can test them in a controlled environment." A "programmer dude's" mistakes CAN cause fatalities. You can't cover every real-world situation in testing. You think they didn't do extensive testing on the parts in the space shuttles?
My apologies, I don't know anything about software development.
I still believe that coding is something much more controllable than physical stuff.
if you don't know anything about it, you shouldn't be making statements about it
i think the point is that because of the dependency on modeling, any liability other engineers are exposed to, software engineers are as well
When I'm thinking about software engineering, I'm not thinking about scripts though. I don't think a web developer is qualified as a software engineer.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
Actually, I'd say it's less controllable. When you build a building, no one expects it to be able to survive above & beyond conditions like a plane going in to it for example, and if this case does happen you're both given more time, money, and resources to make it happen. With computer programming, your application is simply expected to be bulletproof under all cases otherwise it's a failure, even though it could take years to debug even a moderate program, but you're almost never given the time/money to do such things. Physical engineering in turn is more controlled, IMHO.Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: mugs
Says the guy who apparently isn't a software developer.
We've gone from "I don't see a programmer dude's failure will lead to fatalities" to "you can test them in a controlled environment." A "programmer dude's" mistakes CAN cause fatalities. You can't cover every real-world situation in testing. You think they didn't do extensive testing on the parts in the space shuttles?
My apologies, I don't know anything about software development.
I still believe that coding is something much more controllable than physical stuff.
IHateMyJob2004
Lifer
- Sep 29, 2004
- 18,656
- 68
- 91
Ask him what he thinks of those "geeks" that know finite model analysis and know how to write software that does teh mathematics of complex models in highly optimized code. Ya, some of us jnow his job and ours.
Sometiems it's engineering. Software mostly relates to Architecture though, not engineering. Bottom line, you screw up and people can die. A ship can sink due to software or structural failure.
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
I can see ChemEs having a lot of liability issues as well. I don't really know what BioEs do and EEs... they're a different species.
it's not hard to foresee software engineers encountering liability issues
If a ChemE fvcks up on something in a big chemical plant, crap blows up and things get polluted and stuff. I don't know enough about other fields besides civil/structural to comment on them so I'm basing my judgement on what I think they do.
Programmers can debug and stuff... You can't do that with a building, chemical plant, or car, period.
it's pretty rare that you'd be able to cover everything with tests... why is anything buggy at all? you can't catch them all. if a CE fvcks up, crap can blows u, and things can get polluted, etc as well. i don't know about buildings or chemical plants (i suspect there is a lot of modeling that is involved, which is analogous to testing software), but for cars and planes, they are tested out and the design is fixed/refined. what do you think wind tunnels are for?
Sorry I come across as arrogant on something I don't know about...
Buildings don't necessarily have to be modeled, most buildings follow either IBC, SBC, CBC and a couple of major building codes and they give you design values.
There is no way you will know how big of an earthquake or how fast the wind speed will be... Almost all buildings are built so that it can withstand, say, a 100 year quake (quake occurs every 100 years) and that's covered in building code. I don't know much about ChemE.
Wind tunnels can't test cyclic loading on an airfoil after 200 flights, I don't think it'll be cost effective, at least.
Does it matter whether or not programmers call themselves engineer or typist, or janitors call themselves sanitation engineer?Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: mugs
Says the guy who apparantly isn't a software developer.
We've gone from "I don't see a programmer dude's failure will lead to fatalities" to "you can test them in a controlled environment." A "programmer dude's" mistakes CAN cause fatalities. You can't cover every real-world situation in testing. You think they didn't do extensive testing on the parts in the space shuttles?
My apologies, I don't know anything about software development.
I still believe that coding is something much more controllable than physical stuff.
They are all human and are doing honest work and everyone should be treated with equal respect. It doesn?t mean that people with elitist titles such as king, emperor, shah, and president are better than the average people because they are not impervious to crimes, and there are great people that don?t hold any great title in this world that would sacrifice them selves to save others.
http://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/bugse.html
dunno if there are any car accidents, but there are accidents involving far more expensive equipment (mars climate orbiter, for one)
I don't see how you can write an ME program without knowing the ME behind what you're trying to model...
alright man, if you really take a look at what you wrote. You are basically describing your profession as engineering, and then saying: "dude, software engineers don't do that, so they aren't engineers." Really think about it man. Its like me saying "Dude, you don't have to spend hours coming up with algorithms to solve a problem, you have machines give you data, that's not real engineering work."
Another analogy would be you saying: "I'm human, and I can run a mile in 7 minutes, if you can't run a mile in 7 minutes you're not human."
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: mugs
Says the guy who apparantly isn't a software developer.
We've gone from "I don't see a programmer dude's failure will lead to fatalities" to "you can test them in a controlled environment." A "programmer dude's" mistakes CAN cause fatalities. You can't cover every real-world situation in testing. You think they didn't do extensive testing on the parts in the space shuttles?
My apologies, I don't know anything about software development.
I still believe that coding is something much more controllable than physical stuff.
if you don't know anything about it, you shouldn't be making statements about it
i think the point is that because of the dependency on modeling, any liability other engineers are exposed to, software engineers are as well
Yep, I apologized already for the comments made about coding.
You can't depend on the model all the time, a lot of it is experience and engineering judgement.
Originally posted by: JinLien
Does it matter whether or not programmers call themselves engineer or typist, or janitors call themselves sanitation engineer?Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: mugs
Says the guy who apparantly isn't a software developer.
We've gone from "I don't see a programmer dude's failure will lead to fatalities" to "you can test them in a controlled environment." A "programmer dude's" mistakes CAN cause fatalities. You can't cover every real-world situation in testing. You think they didn't do extensive testing on the parts in the space shuttles?
My apologies, I don't know anything about software development.
I still believe that coding is something much more controllable than physical stuff.
They are all human and are doing honest work and everyone should be treated with equal respect. It doesn?t mean that people with elitist titles such as king, emperor, shah, and president are better than the average people because they are not impervious to crimes, and there are great people that don?t hold any great title in this world that would sacrifice them selves to save others.
I honestly don't really care for the title. I was trying to point out the stuff that traditional "engineers" do that software engineers don't do.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter