logoalt Hacker News

youarenaive343yesterday at 10:36 PM3 repliesview on HN

Programming is a brand new discipline. Computers are brand new and revolutionary tech. We're still figuring all this out.

Who, at this time, knows how to write code so well that they can dictate to others how everything should be done, and can they prove this superiority with a mathematical proof? If so, then maybe we can talk about getting bureaucrats involved to make up a bunch of rules and regulations to control everybody. Until then, it's the Wild West out here, and rightfully so.

Tired of shit code? Boycott the organizations who write and deploy it, up to and including opting out of their ' ' society ' ' altogether. Stop expecting Uncle Scam to help you. He's a scammer. All he does is scam people. It's right there in the name.

Ever notice how everything sucks these days--it's all cheap overpriced junk, like appliances, cars, houses, TVs, etc? That's because nobody in this ' ' society ' ' really gives a shit about quality or has any clue how to achieve it. That's who you want making laws?


Replies

tryagainianyesterday at 11:42 PM

You’re responding to an argument I didn’t make.

And looks like you agree that coding isn’t engineering.

The first high-level programming language was Plankalkül, created by Konrad Zuse between 1942 and 1945.[2] The first high-level language to have an associated compiler was created by Corrado Böhm in 1951, for his PhD thesis.

How long are you going to keep claiming programming is a brand new discipline?

Okay, engineering proper has thousands of years of history. But it’s not like coding came down in the last shower.

Fair enough that any random app probably doesn’t need to be probably correct. And that’s why it’s not engineering.

The practice of coding is a science and an art.

I guess we should make a distinction between Engineering and engineering.

Lower case e engineering is the design and manufacture of complex product - in which case, sure coding is engineering, and coders are engineers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_programming_languag...

saghmtoday at 12:55 AM

I don't see why it's inconsistent to claim that programming is not engineering today while leaving the door open to the idea that maybe someday it will be. If anything, that seems in line with the criticism of the incentive structure and priorities of the ecosystem; someone who didn't think it was ever possible would more likely object on technical grounds rather than social ones.

pdpitoday at 3:41 AM

> We're still figuring all this out.

The defining feature of engineering as a profession isn't how much we collectively know about it, it's the attitude we bring into day-to-day practice.

Take something like the Sony BMG rootkit scandal[0]. Anybody with an ounce of sense and even basic technical programming knowledge could tell the sort of security issues that that piece of software could lead to. Shipping that thing was the sort of recklessness that would get you stricken from any industry's professional body.

Or maybe something like the UK's Post Office scandal[1]. One of the issues there was that post offices sold foreign currency. People were accused of (and actually jailed for) fraud because their branch sold $100, there's £70 in the till, and the reconciliation process says that the exchange rate is $100:£80, so there's £10 missing. Horizon had no way to track that the exchange rate at the time of the transaction was $100:£70, they literally shipped a billing system that handles ForEx but doesn't understand exchange rates change over time. And then they lied about it and said the software was working correctly! This isn't an issue with "revolutionary new tech" that we don't fully understand, it's simply a fruit of having an accounting system designed with no actual accountants in the loop. If an accountant had made this exact same mistake, their licence would almost certainly be revoked, but it's somehow ok because computers are involved?

> If so, then maybe we can talk about getting bureaucrats involved to make up a bunch of rules and regulations to control everybody

We don't need "a bunch" of rules and regulations. We only need one: You're liable for damages resulting from reasonably predictable outcomes, as judged by a panel of your peers.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal