I think the author basically decides that "productivity" is not defined but "effective" is. The problem with productivity is that most of us aren't directly producing a thing that is of independent and immediately clear worth. I would claim the same is true if "effectiveness" -- what effect is being achieved, and is it actually worthwhile on its own or is its worth contingent on a bunch of other work and conditions some of which you don't control or observe?
Engineering is about the weight of responsibility you have from the thing that you build. Being knowledgeable and accomplished is a way to reduce that weight because you are confident that you did the correct thing.
To add on, engineering is about objective guarantees to meet objective responsibility.
This bridge is rated for 10 tons. This chemical process produces 1 mg 99% purity crystals. This biological process produces 90% pure insulin. This circuit handles 1 kA.
Engineering is not about better or worse it is about acceptable or unacceptable.
This naturally results in a desire for requirements so you can meet your guarantees. Specifications so you know what guarantees you need or what you are provided and how those map back to the real responsibility. Standards so you can consistently solve common problems.
Engineering is most certainly about being better or worse. A key aspect of being an engineer is that you can make conscious trade offs that include time, cost and feasability among others. It's not always a good choice the make the minimal thing that ticks of all the must requirements. In all cases there are unstated requirements that any engineer worth their salty will think and ask about. If you dont the that's how you get angry customers. That's how you get shitty quality bridges and buildings or cost blowouts. That's how you get bug ridden software. That's how you get the windows start menu.
Writers make conscious trade offs between time, cost, feasibility. Are writers language engineers? Literally everybody makes trade offs, that is not a distinguishing aspect.
I am confused how you got to “make the minimal thing that ticks of [sic] all of the must requirements”. I said engineering was about objective guarantees. Requirements are a derivative and means of that.
Making things better, more efficient, cheaper, etc. is not at odds with that. If you guarantee that level of performance and achieve it, then you have produced a acceptable instance meeting your guarantees. If you fail to meet your guarantees, then you have something unacceptable.
Despite the tolerances of a rocket-quality screw being far better than a car-quality screw being far better than a toy-quality screw, a car-quality screw does not get a pass in rockets because it is “better” than a toy-quality screw. It needs to meet the guarantees.
When you would rather have nothing over something that pretends to meet its guarantees, then you are probably in the vicinity of engineering.
After getting a tiny amount of traffic from HN, its now crashed. Beautifully poetic.
I think theres still a lot of room for traditional engineering - methods that have been robust enough to stand the test of time are enduring because they work! Hype will always hype, but when its delivery time and the system is stress tested, we will see what happens...
I think you are mixing "engineering" with responsibility. You could literally take away "engineering" and put in any other word and it wouldn't mean much at all except just saying 'be responsible'.
Yes having more knowledge and accomplishment (experience) in anything in life lets you develop more confidence.
Ethicality is different from responsibility though, I think you conflated the two.
Being the most effective slave means you’re still a slave. If you’re trading your time for a corporation you’d be smart to give the least amount of effort for the most amount of return. Sounds bad, but corporations are not your friend and will discard you as such.
When I started my career I had the same perspective as the author of the blog , wanting to be the best , but after spending a decade in the industry I fully agree with the sentiment of being the most effective slave (time and choice are the greatest gifts I have ).
What hurts me now is seeing new comers,seeing myself !
I am now a happy and content farmer :)
Yes, my employer might lay me off or not treat me well. I don't understand why that means I shouldn't still try to get better at software engineering. Isn't that the whole point of the post, that software engineering is a type of craftsmanship intrinsically worthy of honing?
On your own projects, absolutely. At work you’re likely limited by Conway’s law or bureaucracy. So yes, you can expend large effort for no real material gain, or you can save that effort for your own projects.
I think you're absolutely right. I also think that trying to become a better person is an important part of living a full life. The work I put in during the hours I'm being paid are a part that life.
I think the author basically decides that "productivity" is not defined but "effective" is. The problem with productivity is that most of us aren't directly producing a thing that is of independent and immediately clear worth. I would claim the same is true if "effectiveness" -- what effect is being achieved, and is it actually worthwhile on its own or is its worth contingent on a bunch of other work and conditions some of which you don't control or observe?
God I feel old.
Engineering is about the weight of responsibility you have from the thing that you build. Being knowledgeable and accomplished is a way to reduce that weight because you are confident that you did the correct thing.
To add on, engineering is about objective guarantees to meet objective responsibility.
This bridge is rated for 10 tons. This chemical process produces 1 mg 99% purity crystals. This biological process produces 90% pure insulin. This circuit handles 1 kA.
Engineering is not about better or worse it is about acceptable or unacceptable.
This naturally results in a desire for requirements so you can meet your guarantees. Specifications so you know what guarantees you need or what you are provided and how those map back to the real responsibility. Standards so you can consistently solve common problems.
Engineering is most certainly about being better or worse. A key aspect of being an engineer is that you can make conscious trade offs that include time, cost and feasability among others. It's not always a good choice the make the minimal thing that ticks of all the must requirements. In all cases there are unstated requirements that any engineer worth their salty will think and ask about. If you dont the that's how you get angry customers. That's how you get shitty quality bridges and buildings or cost blowouts. That's how you get bug ridden software. That's how you get the windows start menu.
Writers make conscious trade offs between time, cost, feasibility. Are writers language engineers? Literally everybody makes trade offs, that is not a distinguishing aspect.
I am confused how you got to “make the minimal thing that ticks of [sic] all of the must requirements”. I said engineering was about objective guarantees. Requirements are a derivative and means of that.
Making things better, more efficient, cheaper, etc. is not at odds with that. If you guarantee that level of performance and achieve it, then you have produced a acceptable instance meeting your guarantees. If you fail to meet your guarantees, then you have something unacceptable.
Despite the tolerances of a rocket-quality screw being far better than a car-quality screw being far better than a toy-quality screw, a car-quality screw does not get a pass in rockets because it is “better” than a toy-quality screw. It needs to meet the guarantees.
When you would rather have nothing over something that pretends to meet its guarantees, then you are probably in the vicinity of engineering.
[dead]
After getting a tiny amount of traffic from HN, its now crashed. Beautifully poetic.
I think theres still a lot of room for traditional engineering - methods that have been robust enough to stand the test of time are enduring because they work! Hype will always hype, but when its delivery time and the system is stress tested, we will see what happens...
Should be good to go. Got a huge spike of traffic from China (according to Cloudflare) when this hit the front page. Odd…
I think you are mixing "engineering" with responsibility. You could literally take away "engineering" and put in any other word and it wouldn't mean much at all except just saying 'be responsible'.
Yes having more knowledge and accomplishment (experience) in anything in life lets you develop more confidence.
Ethicality is different from responsibility though, I think you conflated the two.
In some traditions, engineering is intertwined with responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_of_an_Engineer
Horrific site with abusive antihuman filter and back button hijacking. Flagged.
Howdy!
Sorry, I had an issue with the site being down earlier, so I threw up Cloudflare's bot detector. I'm sorry if that caused you trouble.
As for the back button hijacking, it is definitely unintentional, and I'll see if I can replicate that problem and fix it as soon as possible.
It's a static page for fuc sake. You could have used a CDN. Alternatively, use a more efficient server.
Thanks for the tip.
Seconded. What a moron. Also, neoengineer... it's just an engineer. And probably a pretentious one.
Being the most effective slave means you’re still a slave. If you’re trading your time for a corporation you’d be smart to give the least amount of effort for the most amount of return. Sounds bad, but corporations are not your friend and will discard you as such.
When I started my career I had the same perspective as the author of the blog , wanting to be the best , but after spending a decade in the industry I fully agree with the sentiment of being the most effective slave (time and choice are the greatest gifts I have ). What hurts me now is seeing new comers,seeing myself ! I am now a happy and content farmer :)
Yes, my employer might lay me off or not treat me well. I don't understand why that means I shouldn't still try to get better at software engineering. Isn't that the whole point of the post, that software engineering is a type of craftsmanship intrinsically worthy of honing?
On your own projects, absolutely. At work you’re likely limited by Conway’s law or bureaucracy. So yes, you can expend large effort for no real material gain, or you can save that effort for your own projects.
I think you're absolutely right. I also think that trying to become a better person is an important part of living a full life. The work I put in during the hours I'm being paid are a part that life.