• This is not the engineers fault though.

      It is highly political projects, politicians offloaded their old friends and competitiors onto the boeards and other functions and in the case of the airport major planning was undertaken by a guy who is a technical drawer and not an engineer.

      Most of these fuck ups could have been prevent, if the project management was done by project managers with an engineering background and if the owners side would have been represented by peoplewith a technical backgrounds.

      Source: i have worked in civil engineering for public projects. We wasted 50% of the time explaining Politicians and MBA bros C-levels why they can’t start by building the roof and why replanning half the stuff is a bad idea, when we are already on the market with bids for contractors.

      • SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        For healthy working relationships and solid infrastructure you under-promise and over-deliver.

        For maximal profit and sustainable business models you over-promise and under-deliver.

        • 1993_toyota_camry@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The company that under-promises won’t win the bid, though. Unfortunately the norm now is to overpromise, and then squeeze as many extra fees and concessions out of the project as possible.

          There’s also a culture of contractors vs engineers where limits willingness to work together to find solutions. “not my fault”.

      • interolivary@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well sure that’s fundamentally true, but really doesn’t give any sort of accurate picture of how estimates are done any more than “humans are just collections of cells” does, and anybody who does estimates without using some sort of data as the basis and is purely guessing is doing it wrong as fuck.

        It’s not like we have no idea how long certain tasks have taken in the past, or what affects how long something will take.

    • thequickben@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I personally disagree. Took 3 years of Electrical Engineering courses in college but finished with a B.S in Computer Science. Both are valid engineering disciplines, the only thing lacking on the computer side are standardized licensing tests and an oversight body. Software engineers have to build software that can affect life and death too, but somehow we don’t have as much regulation in the US which is super odd to me.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What makes something engineering vs not? Personally what I do doesn’t feel like engineering because I imagine engineering as being about following a particular process and doing things in a very cautious and structured way, where programming is normally way more chaotic.

        • madkarlsson@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Your notion of an engineer is correct in a wide sense

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer

          The fact that you feel programming is not that makes me sad. But likely dependent on what software and what you work with. For example, if you build software for NASA or Baxter and dialysis machines and the likes, you’ll get fired fast for not being structured. Working for Elon Musk and Twitter… Well…

          • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t think it has to be a sad thing. Without that sort of structure you can be more imaginative, which has many advantages. Again, I don’t want to be an engineer, I feel that would suck all the joy out of it and just isn’t my style. That isn’t to say an engineering approach to programming doesn’t exist or isn’t useful/necessary in some cases, but I would say it isn’t the norm and probably shouldn’t be.

            • madkarlsson@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I personally think it’s a bit of a fallacy to equal structure with less creativity.

              Look at Calatrava https://duckduckgo.com/?q=calatrava&t=fpas&iax=images&ia=images

              Further, you can’t design something like the Burj Khalifa without creativity

              Maybe the line goes where you are risking peoples life or not, maybe somewhere else. It still makes me sad that you equal programming with chaos. But that is very context driven. The drive for new software, new interfaces, new tech overall naturally breeds less oversight and less structure naturally ofc. But it doesn’t have to be that way, nor should it be if you ask me

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Comp Sci is not engineering. Programming is not engineering. I don’t mean this in an elitist way, it just flat-out doesn’t fit with other engineering fields. It’s firmly in the T area of STEM, not the E.

  • Captain Janeway@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Software engineering is just what any “engineering” field would be if they didn’t have standards. We have some geniuses and we have some idiots.

    Mechanical engineers, civil engineers, electrical engineers, etc. are often forced to adhere to some sort of standard. It means something to say “I’m a civil engineer” (in most developed nations). You are genuinely liable in some instances for your work. You have to adhere to codes and policies and formats.

    Software engineering is the wild west right now. No rules. No standards. And in most industries we may never need a standard because software rarely kills.

    However, software is becoming increasingly important in our daily lives. There will likely come a day wherein similar standards take precedence and the name “software engineer” is only allowed to those who adhere to those standards and have the proper certs/licenses. I believe Canada already does this.

    Software engineers would be responsible for critical software, e.g: ensuring phones connecting to an emergency operator don’t fail, building pacemakers, securing medical records, etc. I know some of these tasks already have “experts” behind them. But I don’t think software has any licensing/governing.

    Directly opposed to “engineering” would be the grunt work which I do.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are definitely quality certifications for software. Plenty of govt acquisitions contracts require such certifications. We probably aren’t far from laws or executive mandates which require such things tbh