On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

Soft Engineering

TrackBack — Wed, 25 May 2005 15:36:00 GMT

I like working in a new space. Whether that space is new to me, newly opened, or newly discovered. Writing, crafting, growing, accruing, and constructing software is like engineering, except where it's not. Fred Brooks, as I recall, had a lot to say about how software differs from hardware engineering. Hardware engineering is true engineering: you have a precisely-specified set...

re:On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

TrackBack — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:57:00 GMT

^_~,pretty good!

re:On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

TrackBack — Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:14:00 GMT

^_^,Pretty Good!

re: On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

Ralf — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:03:00 GMT

@Peter: I agree with you. And your examples show, that software development is even more so like other trades.

Thx for your term "pornography standard" :-) I like it very much.

Shortened schedules, mismanagement and incompetence surely make up for many, many problems in software development. But even if management was more understanding/competent, there would be a gap towards perfect software. Developers have to improve too.

re: On the Future of Software Development #2

Peter — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:48:00 GMT

Failed Projects: How many houses get built where the project sponsor doesn't even know what sort of house they want? On just how many housing projects does the client say, half way through construction, "no, move the bedrooms 6 feet over to the left." On how many bridge construction projects do the plans change, during construction, from a 2 lane bridge to a 6 lane-each-way bridge?

People use what I call the "pornography standard" for software completion (named in honor of a supreme court justice who couldn't tell you what porn is, but knew it when he saw it), because they don't know what they want, but will let you know when you get there.

We also have insanly shortened schedules from mismanagers that think that if 1 woman can have a baby in 9 months, then we can just make her work harder and have that baby in 3 months, because that's what the sales department is selling.

Failed projects are a sign of managerial incompetance. We call them "death marches" for a good reason. I've never seen a project cancelled because the developers were idiots, although I've been hired to clean up after some. Dealing with LSD schedules doesn't help.

re: On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

Ralf — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:50:00 GMT

@Ed: I feel with you, when you say, you´re "in love with the thought of software as an 'art'." I´d love it to continue to be an art - but I think it cannot (if it ever was).

And I don´t agree with Andy Warhol. How he´s using the term "art" (and how Joseph Beuys used it) is not how I´d would use it. Maybe that´s where we differ. Business or software is not in the same league like painting, sculpting, acting, composing and performing music. Neither is architecture.

However what I see perfectly fit for software is a concept of "mastery" like it´s known in the western world. Or take "shu ha ri" (3 stages on the way to becoming a master) from the far east.

Certainly we have and need masters of our trade! And there should be a roadmap, an agreement on skillset and criteria for recognizing a true master.

As for design: I love good design (from coffee cups to cars and books :-). And I recommend "The Design of Everyday Things" as reading for any software developer. But a need for good design does not make a trade an art form.

re: On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

Ed Daniel — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:33:00 GMT

Software has a long way to go in order to get to where consumer electronics currently is. However at that point what is prevalent in the marketplace beyond the spec and feature sheets is the manner in which that product is built, i.e. it's design in relation to how we interact with it.

I am in love with the thought of software as 'art'.

I find Andy Warhol's quote about business and art inspiring in this respect:

"Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art"

Architects (not software) are prized for their approach to design. That is the human element that touches all of us, we (general public) don't care for the resilience of the structure, its functionality i.e. 'fit-for-purpose', it's use of material in the most efficient manner because we assume/expect that to be so.

What is prized is the end result and it's effect (visual).

While the software industry continues to mature at an ever increasing pace it is the pleasure a user derives from your software that makes it great. In turn that makes you, the software author, special.

Yes, anyone can code now, mainly because the knowledge is there for the taking - it's how we use our knowledge and devise our approach that sorts the engineers from the artists.

re: On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

Ralf — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:20:00 GMT

@Sandesh: You are right in that movies don´t need to be maintained like software.
But I did not want to suggest that. I wanted to use movies as an example for a high production rate of very unique products. Up to several hundred specialists cooperate over years to produce a very expensive product. And it most often just works (although not every movie becomes a hit). That´s something we can learn from.

re: On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

sandesh — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:43:00 GMT

I think the movie analogy is not a correct one at all. There is no concept of "maintenance" when it comes to a movie and that is where quite a lot of s/w issues arise. True, meeting the taste of potential audiences is difficult, but (and here I consider the Indian movie industry) the ration of hits to misses would be somethink like 1:40 (only 20 movies out of 800 would qualify as hits). I am sure that s/w projects hit those numbers too. And (again with reference to Bollywood) there are quite a few stars that have such a following, the faithful will flock to see a movie just based on the star, not for the "quality" of the movie.

re: On the Future of Software Development #2 – We are not so special

Ralf — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:47:00 GMT

@Steve: Sorry, I don´t agree with all of your explanations:

deployment: I´d counter by saying, customers are paying more today, than they´d, if deployment were easier. They just don´t know, they are in a position to demand less trouble. Or alternatively: Platform manufacturers slowly are realizing that ease of deployment is important and take steps to improve it. But slowly. XCOPY deployment of .NET assemblies is a major advantage over COM component registration. ClickOnce is another step. But still... there´s a long way to go.

languages: There contrary will happen: we will see more and more specialized languages (domain specific languages). There might be some convergence in GPLs, but all in all we see more languages, because languages are tools. And as an industry matures it specializes its tools.

failed projects: So if anybody can pick up a compiler and call himself a "software engineer", than there is something wrong. I don´t mean compilers should become more difficult to use ;-) Rather a customer (or employer) should have better means to asses the professional skill level of a programmer.

movies: Selling moviers might be simple. But meeting the taste of the potential audience is difficult (despite stars and happy ends).