<blockquote>
If medicine is a craft, then you focus on teaching obstetricians to acquire a set of artisanal skills—the Woods corkscrew maneuver … , the Lovset maneuver …, the feel of a forceps for a baby whose head is too big. … You accept that things will not always work out in everyone’s hands.
But if medicine is an industry, responsible for the safest possible delivery of some four million babies a year in the United States alone, then a new understanding is required. The focus shifts. You seek reliability.
You begin to wonder whether forty-two thousand obstetricians in the Unites [sic] States could really safely master all those techniques. You notice the steady reports of terrible forceps injuries to babies and mothers, despite all the training that clinicians received.
After Apgar, obstetricians decided they needed a simpler, more predictable way to intervene when a laboring mother ran into trouble. They found it in the Cesarean section.
</blockquote>
Atul Gawande, Better: A Surgeon’s Notes on Performance, at 192 (Henry Holt & Co. 2007) (emphasis and extra paragraphing added).
But the article isn't arguing that, the article seems to be arguing we are something more than engineers.
There is a subtle implication that engineers are hyper pragmatic and the only thing that is important is that it works. My wife who is a biomedical engineer and makes robots might disagree. In fact, I don't know many good engineers of any kind that stop at "just working."
I think this artisan argument could also be applied to other types of engineering as well.
However, the title is slightly off, it should probably be "You Are an Artisan, Not JUST an Engineer" --- the two aren't mutually exclusive and the author even acknowledges that in the first paragraph.
But we are not even engineers, let alone more.
There are some people active in the production of software that would qualify as engineers but that's a tiny fraction and they're not going to be found too far from medical devices and aerospace.
I feel perfectly content to deem my work as "engineering". I can understand why someone quickly whipping up a small web application (which is not to imply that all web applications are quickly whipped up, nor that all web applications are small) might reasonably feel that their work is not engineering.
So since I've also done quick little web applications, what do I think the difference is?
The aerospace work includes precise operational requirements. It includes formal verification tests which demonstrate that the requirements are met. Code is reviewed; documents are reviewed; reviews are reviewed (not joking, though typically only a sampling subset). Code is subject to formal coding standards; code repositories are subject to formal standards; tools for testing software are subject for formal standards (and documented/reviewed/etc. in their own right). Software that goes onto aircraft is tested in simulations; tested in limited on-ground hardware scenarios; tested in extensive on-ground hardware scenarios; tested on board flying aircraft. The entire process (and the following of process) is reviewed. The end product is signed off on, and, for example, in the case of U.S. commercial aerospace, certified by FAA representatives.
Sounds nothing at all like developing web applications!
Or does it?
A consumer-facing startup web application might have little or no requirements. Testing may be ad hoc. Nothing is reviewed. Coding standards don't exist. Does the software seem to do what is intended? Ship it!
But what about web applications for banking? I've never worked in banking, but I suspect the requirements are fairly robust. (And if in fact they are not, they easily could be.) I suspect that tests are comprehensives, traced back to the requirements. (And if in fact they are not, they easily could be.) I suspect that the software goes through several rounds of testing, that code is reviewed, that coding standards are adhered to. Maybe not to the same level as aerospace, but probably pretty solid.
So what?
Is financial software engineered? I would imagine so. Maybe not as strictly as aerospace -- or maybe stricter! I honestly don't know. But I can easily imagine comparable scenarios.
So if we can engineer financial software, can we not engineer productivity software? We sure could! How about social media software? You bet! Even games? Why not?
I think that all software could be engineered. But in fact it probably shouldn't be. If you want to make a change on software on an aircraft, it might be five minutes editing code in Emacs, surrounded by a year of paperwork and process. That'd be ridiculous for an iPhone game. It'd probably be excessive for a financial application, but maybe some measure of that would be appropriate.
Perhaps there is (or should be) a spectrum of software engineering. At one end, we take extreme measures to ensure quality and process, because (literally) lives depend on it. At the other end, we can hack out whatever we want and it doesn't matter. Most software lies somewhere in between. Maybe some of it should consider moving more toward one end or the other. :-)
[Incidentally, it's common to repeat the phrase, "never roll your own cryptography software". I think it would be totally fair to say "never roll your own flight control software" too. But the people actually writing flight control software aren't necessarily top-tier 0.000000001% brilliant developers. They are, though, surrounded by sufficient process and review that their work is nearly guaranteed to be solid by the time it takes to the air. We could probably do something similar with cryptography software, if there were a model in place (and, I reckon, funding in place) for all of the surrounding infrastructure to engineer it properly.]
There are even some that are just wrong, like the 'throw it away' section.
"It's not the code that is valuable. It's the understanding you've gained from building it."
What? Maybe at some places, but where I work, the software I write is NEEDED.
And this:
"Never be afraid to throw something away and do it again. It will almost always be faster to build and much better the second (or third, or Nth) time around."
Has he never heard of the second system effect?
This jumped out at me too. This is such a HUGE fallacy. If what you have written is core to or is the product you're selling, you can't just rewrite it! Software evolves over time, and it can become difficult to replace it when it gains features and bug fixes for random edge conditions.
Properly replacing existing software requires having a consistent API against which you are developing and can test to make sure that it continues to work. And then having the ability to potentially dark launch new software next to old to see that it works properly. Even doing all of that, replacement projects often fail, why? Simply because most organizations can't afford to have a team that is not contributing to the bottom line of delivering features to customers.
Doing a replacement project should never be started without a significant amount of thought and attention. Software always takes longer to develop than you think, I even underestimate "Hello World!" most of the time.
But yeah, I kinda have a feeling I know where he is coming from with some of his thoughts... my first few jobs were at startups that never went anywhere. We made great software, but never gained any customers because there was no real market for what we made.
After a while, you get REALLY focused on the craft of your code, because it is all you have. You can throw out old stuff and rewrite it, because it doesn't matter, you don't have customers depending on you. You already made what is needed by the business, the problem is there IS no business.
My current job is with a large CDN, serving a huge number of actual real customers with real demands. I don't have time to treat every piece of code I write as a piece of art. It is simply a tool to further the business.
Personally, I much prefer my current job. I would rather create things that actually matter, rather than amazing art that no one uses.
My team and I were recently working on a replacement for an old service. One weekend I thought, "I could re-write the whole thing in a way better, clever-er way!" I stayed up way too late hacking on it. It was my masterpiece. Sunday night I uploaded it to our org's GitHub and then on Monday the team lead was like "Um, what's that?" and then I knew that the feelings I'd ignored while writing it were true: it was a waste of time. We weren't going to use my new re-write.
Starting with the title. Yes, I'm an engineer. I studied engineering, including algebra, calculus, and physics for CS students, a common core for all engineering students, regardless their specialty. Don't take that away from me. I saw colleagues leave after 1st and 2nd years because they couldn't stand it. It's my peers' and my achievement.
I'm an engineer also because I solve people's problems through software, applying technology derived from scientific breakthroughs.
Yes, sometimes we need to get creative, as everyone else.
Finishing with this
We are in a very fast-paced industry, and nothing will stand still for long.
That mentality is toxic. I aim for my designs, APIs, routines, scrips, to be as long lived as I can make them. Most of the time I don't achieve it. Sometimes it's my fault, sometimes it's the environment. But I create for the future. For me it would be an enormous achievement to learn some piece of software is still kicking ass 5y/10y/15y after.
'Come, write your code on this artisanal platform, carefully crafted by Tibetan monks in their 5th year of a 10 year vow of silence'
I guess my point is, it's fine to write code and NOT be an artisan. I'd argue that most people who code are not as interested in the creation aspect of is as much as "doing cool stuff" or making money...and that's fine.
But let's not paint all developers with an artisan brush.
That's the norm for artisans (which is just a skilled worker in a trade involved in making things, especially by hand), not a distinction. Artists may be a different story, but artists aren't the same thing as artisans.
ar·ti·san noun: artisan; plural noun: artisans a worker in a skilled trade, especially one that involves making things by hand. synonyms: craftsman, craftswoman, craftsperson; skilled worker, technician; smith, wright, journeyman; archaicartificer "artisans from around North America will demonstrate their crafts"
smith noun: smith; plural noun: smiths 1. a worker in metal. short for blacksmith.
It seems artisan is more appropriate.
It feels like we are borrowing titles from other professions in effort to legitimize our profession. (or inventing new ones)
Software "Engineer"
Software "Architect"
* "Designer"
Solutions *
Distinguished *
Software "Evangelist"
"Technologists"
* Specialist
“Engineer” and “architect” are much more nuanced and hard to distinguish.
Developers tend to be much more creative than that.
It also emphasizes the fact that coding is an iterative process. Sometimes you have to strip the whole thing down, make your codebase malleable again, and pound away to refashion it a different way.
Own Up to Failure
I've worked in quite a few places where arse covering was a full-time activity. Where, "I don't want to make a decision because then I can't change my mind later," is and actual quote during requirements gathering.
For some reason, I've never been bothered being honest when I've screwed up. I distinctly remember one time when one of the client's staff came to me about a problem, loaded for bear, fully expecting a fight on their hands. About one minute into the discussion, having got my head around the problem I said, "Yeah, that was my stuff up. I'll get that fixed."
There was a palpable sense of shock, followed by delight and relief.
...and that leads in to...
Trust is Earned
Where I was brought into high-level management meeting with the same client about some important issue, and my opening remark was, "That's not a bug, it's a feature," as which point my project manager nearly had kittens on the spot. But I then explained through the details of what was going on, agreed on a couple of minor adjustments that would make things clearer in the future, and everyone came away satisfied.
Don't know if I could have gotten away with that if I hadn't already had the reputation for being straight with people and owning my own mistakes.
Perhaps UI and UX design is an art, but at the end software requires engineering.
The only manifesto i'd recommend is this one:
For example: Given a bog-standard relational database and the requirement to be able to create, read, update, and delete rows in the database, what is the best way to present that via an HTTP API? What language will be used? What will the API look like? What edge cases will be considered? How long will it take?
You'll probably get a unique answer for every dev you ask, even though they'll all consider it to be a trivial task. You'll probably also get fairly unique clarification questions about the spec from each one as well.
I'm not sure, when we can put the same task to 100 people and get 100 unique results (and few (if any) would agree to monetary penalties for failures), that we're strongly positioned within the engineering discipline.
Nah I'd rather be available during hours to fix my bugs. Call me old fashioned, but does anyone not believe your work should not follow you home? I love what France is doing with the "right to disconnect"
The inabilty of the young folk to disconnect from their work is disasterous.
I know the historical reference but I'm not sure I understand what the author is actually talking about here.
Ultimately, the issue for me is when people use the wrong title (?) to describe their level of experience, skill and overall sweet spot.
For example, a programmer is not a developer, and a developer is not an engineer. So when a programmer describes themselves as an engineer - to someone who has no idea what the difference is - that just ruins it for everyone. Not to point fingers in a negative way but the WordPress community is notorious for such shenanigans.
if (inputStr == "artisan") { ENV = "MARKETING" };
You may not like it, but engineer is probably the closest match to an existing profession.
https://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Painters-Big-Ideas-Computer/d...
Even if you are building a robot, which is undoubtedly engineering, you probably have a team down the road building something similar.
In fact, most software engineers I know are very interested in the cutting edge and research pieces. You can make a living as a mechanical engineer without using an equation newer than a few hundred years.
Have you seen what's happened to control theory in the last 15 years? There's so much new math that new PhDs are having trouble deciding which parts to learn. Control theory has imported much of machine learning in addition to all the classic control theory, and they want bounds so they know the machine learning parts won't do something stupid.
Why not stop at "An engineer makes something work. You are more than that. You are an artisan." and present a reasonable line of argument?
