Glenn Vanderburg of LivingSocial on why software development is an engineering discipline on HackerTube: recommended by 2 Hacker News commenters across 2 separate months, 2015–2018.
talk · intermediate · evergreen
Glenn Vanderburg argues at the O'Reilly Software Architecture Conference that software development is an engineering discipline, even if immature. He contends the discredited body of knowledge called software engineering has led people to wrongly reject the label.
Recommended in debates over whether software is real engineering, as a well-argued case that building is cheap relative to simulating.
“Required viewing”
3 Hacker News comments link this video. Each one links back to its thread.
Careful. Software engineering is very much a real engineering discipline, and it is a major cultural failing to not recognize it as such. Required viewing: ▶ this video
in “Stanford CS9: Problem-Solving for the CS Technical Interview” · View on HN
I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but I thought this is interesting: The last O'Reilly Software Architecture Conference had a talk by Glenn Vanderburg titled "why software development is an engineering discipline": ▶ this video I think the author of the blogpost does a lot of the things discussed in the talk (e.g. comparing it mostly to civil engineering as opposed to all the other engineering disciplines).
in “Why Software Engineering Isn’t Engineering” · View on HN
Actually, it is fundamentally different in that just building the thing / just running the experiment is cheaper than doing the simulations or proofs. Every other discipline does simulations because actually running the experiment is magnitudes more expensive and time consuming. See "Why software development is an engineering discipline" ▶ this video
in “Software Engineering ≠ Computer Science (2009)” · View on HN