🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30 Jul 91 05:40:14 GMT, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) said:

Dan> ... we know neither how to teach nor to test programming ability in any
Dan> ``objective'' fashion the way that we can in engineering or medicine. In

> You see a strict division between art and science, where none exists.

Dan> I have made no such statement. I see a division between art and
Dan> engineering. Programming is an art, and as such cannot be objectively
Dan> tested. I am not arguing the point that programming errors occasionally
Dan> claim lives. My claim is that we can't help the situation by licensing,
Dan> because we do not know a suitable test for the ability to write a
Dan> program. An engineer who can solve several dozen small problems and
Dan> tests of his knowledge will quite likely be able to apply that knowledge
Dan> to a larger problem. The same cannot be said of programmers.

Dan, you sure have a lot to say about engineering.  Are you an engineer
by profession?  I am, as are many of my close acquaintances.  I won't bore
you with a resume, but in my particular field I am internationally known,
have written a fair number of papers, and recieved a fair number of awards.
This certainly doesn't qualify me to speak for every engineer on the
face of the Earth, but I think I can claim to have some insight into the
profession of engineering.  Your comments sound completely unrelated to
the profession as I know it.

First and foremost, where do you derive the "division between art and
engineering."  Engineering is very much an art, much like programming.
Indeed, programming is an important part of some fields of engineering.
It certainly is a part of my field.  I do lots of both engineering
and programming and I see no distinction between the amount of art
involved.  In both engineering and programming, you will find many
people technically competent in the tools, but lacking in the art.
I'll avoid publically insulting people by mentioning names, but believe
me there are plenty.

From my point of view, engineering is *mostly* art.  That is what
distinguishes the good engineers from the deadwood.  That is also
the part that takes time to develop and mature because it can't be
taught.  I suppose some of it is innate and some evolves with experience.
I know that I have learned much in my 20 years of experience and most
of that has been in the art.  The objective technical skills do well
to remain at the same level (I hate to admit), particularly those that
aren't actively used in one's particular specialty, but I've still
got a huge advantage over the new graduate that may have freshly honed
technical skills but has not yet had the experience to mature in the
art.

> Many engineers started out as I mentioned, taking things
> apart and putting them back together...many graduated from *that* to
> do the typical teenage thing...modifying cars for better performance.

Dan> Once again you imply that the skill of a mechanic is connected with the
Dan> skill of a mechanical engineer. That is unsupportable. Most mechanics
Dan> show absolutely no interest in mechanical engineering.

You also make some strong statements about engineering as a hobby.
I know *many* people with engineering hobbies.  I'm one myself.
Completely unrelated to my professional work, I "play" with model
rockets, private planes, and other engineering-related hobbies.
I consider there very engineering related.  I'd say that almost
all the "good" engineers also regard engineering as a hobby (and
are pleased that people will actually pay to support their hobby).
Yes, there are engineers who have little interest in the field
other than as a source of paychecks; these don't tend to be among
the more productive engineers.

I personally graduated from playing with model airplanes to a profession
in aeronautical engineering, as did many of the aeronautical engineers
that I know.  You say this kind of connection is "unsupportable?"
That's news to me.  I also took several courses in mechanical
engineering (aeronatutical and mechanical are part of the same
department in many engineering schools), and they certainly seemed
very related to the skill of a mechanic to me.  Have you taken such
courses.

Certainly there are mechanics who understand little of the theory
behind designing engines, and there are mechanical engineers who
can't use a screwdriver.  That doesn't mean that the fields are not
closely related and that some teen-age car hobbyists don't go on
to become mechanical engineers.

You appear to be trying to make distinctions that don't exist (in my
not so humble opinion).  I'll grant you presumably know about the
fields of programming and computer science, but it looks to me like
you are basing your statements about engineering on the basis of
stereotypes that have little to do with reality.

Dan> ... There are no documented cases of a young genius in
Dan> mechanical engineering, or civil engineering, or even architecture.

Strong words.  You've presumably checked every person in the world
before making such a sweeping statement?  I'd venture Leonardo
Da Vinci as a good candidate.  There are certainly plenty of others.

Oh yes, other parts of this thread have regularly referred to
engineering as a licensed profession.  The large majority of engineers
are not licensed.  This isn't because they aren't capable or are less
professional in any way.  It is because licensing is irrelevant to
most of engineering.  I don't have a license myself and don't know why
I would bother.  They aren't required or much noticed in my field.
(I'm frankly not sure whether a license in aeronautical engineering
even exists, which shows how unimportant they must be if they do).
--
--
Richard Maine
maine@altair.dfrf.nasa.gov