bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) (05/26/89)
Come off it you guys. "Real" engineers screw up just like we programmers. O-rings fail, new cars are recalled, helicopters crash, chunks fall off of jet airliners, windows pop out of high-rise buildings, new bridges collapse, structs crack, pipes burst, freeways are jammed upon completion, printed circuit boards have suspicious little wires soldered here and there. The big difference, as far as I can tell, is that the educational and certification systems for older engineering disciplines keep out more of the rank amateurs (or should I say rinky-dink entrepreneurs). I've seen million dollar (software) projects being handled by start-up companies I wouldn't trust to get a "hello, world" program correct. Good engineering is done by good engineers. Good software is produced by good programmers. The problem for software projects is that there are not enough good experienced programmers and therefore there are not enough good experienced programming managers. I know what a programmer is. I almost understand what software-engineering is. Computer Science seems just as valid as, say, Political Science and more valid than Economics. What I want to know is, just what the hell is a "Systems Analyst," and why do big companies keep putting them in charge of programmers [only marginal sarcasm intended]? -Brad Sherman (bks@ALFA.Berkeley.EDU) Just a programmer unless, of course, calling myself a software engineer or systems analyst would result in a bigger paycheck.
chrisp@regenmeister.uucp (Chris Prael) (05/28/89)
From article <24857@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman): > Come off it you guys. "Real" engineers screw up just like we programmers. > O-rings fail, new cars are recalled, helicopters crash, chunks fall off > of jet airliners, windows pop out of high-rise buildings, new bridges > collapse, structs crack, pipes burst, freeways are jammed upon completion, > printed circuit boards have suspicious little wires soldered here and there. > > The big difference, as far as I can tell, is that the educational and > certification systems for older engineering disciplines keep out more Which simply shows that you, like many in our field, are seriously under-informed about how real engineers function. Yes, failures do happen in the conventional engineering fields. And, usually, when the failure is investigated (another big difference) the failure is traced to unprofessional conduct: procedures ignored, specifications not written or ignored, covering up, etc. Just like in the programming projects that go bust! > Good engineering is done by good engineers. Good software is > produced by good programmers. The problem for software projects is > that there are not enough good experienced programmers and therefore > there are not enough good experienced programming managers. My experience is that, in the South Bay Area anyway, it is very rare for competent programmers to rise to managerial positions in software. More often it is the unprofessional muck-ups who become managers. A competent professional scares the pants off these jerks. > I know what a programmer is. I almost understand what software-engineering > is. Until you know what software-engineering is, you will not know what (or who) a competent programmer is. > Computer Science seems just as valid as, say, Political Science > and more valid than Economics. Interesting choice. How is it that you find Political Science more valid than Economics? Chris Prael
diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) (05/29/89)
In article <24857@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) writes: >Good engineering is done by good engineers. Good software is produced by >good programmers. True. Only most companies want to hire cheap programmers instead of good ones. >The problem for software projects is that there are not enough good >experienced programmers I think that in fact there are. >and therefore So I do not think it is the reason for the following: >there are not enough good experienced programming managers. This is definitely true. Many good programmers do not want to become managers because it is easier and more productive to manage computers. But even those who do want to become managers are often frustrated. Again most companies do not want managers to be experienced in the field that they're managing. My impression is that other fields of engineering would suffer this problem too, except for legislation and licensing requirements, etc. There are exceptions though. If a good programmer begins working for a bank instead of for a vendor, the rewards will arrive several years later. -- Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp@relay.cs.net) The above opinions are my own. | Why are programmers criticized for If they're also your opinions, | re-implementing the wheel, when car you're infringing my copyright. | manufacturers are praised for it?
hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) (05/31/89)
In article <24857@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) writes: }... just what the hell is a "Systems Analyst," ... In theory, at least, a person who determines user requirements and converts them to system specifications. Programmers turn system specs into code. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@ttidca.tti.com) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) (05/31/89)
In article <33816@regenmeister.uucp> chrisp@regenmeister.uucp (Chris Prael) writes: >From article <24857@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman): >> Come off it you guys. "Real" engineers screw up just like we programmers. >> ... >> The big difference, as far as I can tell, is that the educational and >> certification systems for older engineering disciplines keep out more >> ... >Which simply shows that you, like many in our field, are seriously >under-informed about how real engineers function. Well, this IS the crux of my argument. Please enlighten us. What is it about the day to day functioning of "real" engineers that is so different from the way "real" programmers function. >> I know what a programmer is. I almost understand what software-engineering >> is. >Until you know what software-engineering is, you will not know >what (or who) a competent programmer is. Was that necessary? I'm a member of ACM, IEEE Computer Society and I read IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. I have completed projects on time, to spec and under budget. However, almost every month in one form or another, I read or hear some "real" engineer complaining about programmers. I'm still waiting to hear a description of what engineering connotes that is missing from software development. This does NOT mean that I reject the kind of discipline, redundancy and design that I THINK is implied when the phrase "software engineering" is used. Nor do I wish to be associated with amateurs any more than engineers want to be associated with tinkerers (no offense intended to this honorable group). >> ... >Interesting choice. How is it that you find Political Science >more valid than Economics? It might be because the P.I. for our group is a Political Scientist, but I'm far too objective to let something like that influence me. Brad Sherman (bks@ALFA.Berkeley.Edu)
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (05/31/89)
>In article <24857@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) writes: >}... just what the hell is a "Systems Analyst," ... In article <4514@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes: >In theory, at least, a person who determines user requirements and >converts them to system specifications. Programmers turn system specs >into code. I'm not sure that's a theory. I suspect its IBM policy (;-)). A real systems analyst is someone who understands (in the sense of being able to model & predict) the behavior of complex interacting (sub-)systems. They **are** occasionally found in industry, but in most cases the term is a job-title for a senior programmer who has done at least one major project without it failing completely, and now is excused from further programming. --dave (who actually studied systems theory) c-b ps: the above is quasi-humourous. flames to /dev/null
chrisp@regenmeister.uucp (Chris Prael) (06/01/89)
From article <25047@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman): > In article <33816@regenmeister.uucp> chrisp@regenmeister.uucp (Chris Prael) writes: >>From article <24857@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, by bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman): >>> I know what a programmer is. I almost understand what software-engineering >>> is. >>Until you know what software-engineering is, you will not know >>what (or who) a competent programmer is. > > Was that necessary? I'm a member of ACM, IEEE Computer Society and > I read IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. I don't know what, or that, membership in ACM or IEEE could have to do with the issue. The question is one of performing in a disciplined and open manner more than anything else. > I have completed > projects on time, to spec and under budget. Sounds to me as though you have the basic idea. I would have been more pleased to see the first two items in the reverse order. Now, do you perform this normally, as a matter of course, or in exceptional circumstances. If the latter, you know how to be an engineer. If the former, you are an engineer. Chris Prael;