[long] Re: Legal traps in open source

[David Gibson]

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:55:49PM +1100, Sam Couter wrote:
> Paul Bryan <pa_bryan at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I'd rather put my skilled workers onto handling dynamic memory stuff , low 
> > level coding etc. (C/C++) and let the monkeys rely on niceties like 
> > garbage[1] collection (Java) personally :-P
> 
> It's possible to leak memory or use incorrect referenes in Java too, you
> know. In fact, I'm neck-deep in the worst Java code I've ever seen right
> now, and it's worse than most C code I've seen.
> 
> Anyway, I think you're confusing technical skills with engineering and
> architecting skills.
> 
> Software Engineers don't get taught how to code any more than a Civil
> Engineer gets taught how to pour concrete or an architect is taught how
> to use a hammer.
> 
> The ability to code doesn't automatically include the ability to design,
> and vice-versa.
> 
> I'd rather have a Software Engineer design a system and manage the
> project, and have code monkeys build it according to the Engineer's
> instructions and specifications. A different group of code monkeys
> should build test harnesses and try to break the first group's software.

The trouble is that software engineering at this point is simply not a
comparable discipline to civil engineering.

Take most books on the subject and you'll find that they're a mix of
obvious platitudes and waffle so turgid and vague as to be completely
meaningless.  With a bit of stuff thats Just Plain Bollocks for
flavour.  If you're very lucky and it's one of the better books it
might have a handful of good ideas or techniques mixed in with that.
Of course, it might also take one pretty good idea, pursue if beyond
all reason ("hey, you don't need intelligence, common sense or
contingency plans if you just Embrace The Process") to the point that
it is counter-productive.

Maybe one day software engineering will resemble real engineering, but
personally I doubt it:  abstract things are very different from
physical things.  It shouldn't be surprising that building them
requires a different approach.

-- 
David Gibson			| For every complex problem there is a
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au	| solution which is simple, neat and
				| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson