Is software engineering, well, engineering?

[dyqik]

Basically, they don’t need to understand and apply science as a routine part of their job.

What do you think "computer science" is?

Was Turing a mathematician or a scientist?

Yes.

[plodder]

Yes, loads of maths and logic and difficult technical things to do with them. Very little else though.

If you want to define an engineer as someone who is really good at applied maths then you're including economists.

[plodder]

What do you think "computer science" is?

From the degree syllabus I posted a couple of pages back, it's a lot of coding. Whereas an engineering degree contains a lot of science - mine had modules containing A-Level equivalent physics, chemistry and biology, as well as loads of applied maths, stats etc.

You haven't posted a syllabus for a computer science degree, but one software engineering degree at one university which is traditionally more practically based. Other computer science course will get closer to the hardware, where the physics and maths interact more directly. However, software engineering is necessarily more abstract than electrical engineering, which is in turn less mechanical that mechanical engineering.

Even so:

From the Software Engineering course you linked to:

Computer Systems – This module provides a foundation in computer architecture and operating systems with a specific emphasis on their security. Students will learn about computer hardware, software, operating systems, and demonstrate practical knowledge of these during lab sessions. Studying this module student will be able to relate the abstract concepts of logic and number systems to their concrete representation on real machines and identify the security risks in common configurations of computer operating systems and suggest appropriate mitigations. In the practical lab sessions students will also learn to develop shell scripts.

This is applied mathematics.

Mathematics for Computing – Mathematical structures are introduced that provide a basis for computer science. Specific topics include logic, set theory, probability and statistics.

'nuff said.

Database Design and Implementation – Structured data, held in relational databases, accessed via SQL, supports the information storage requirements of many companies, organisations, and on-line businesses. In this module the student will learn the fundamentals of how to design the structure of data within a relational database, how to interact with data within the database, and how to protect the data within the database.

Serious maths here as well.

Data Structures and Algorithms – This module introduces a variety of data structures and algorithms for sequential execution. Classical data structures will be introduced (including stacks, queues, lists, trees, and hash tables) and algorithms for searching and sorting. The performance characteristics of these data structures and algorithms will be explained. Specific coding issues will also be considered such as modularity, genericity, equality, assignment, mutable and immutable objects.

More serious maths.

Concurrent and Parallel Algorithms – The module will introduce students to concurrent program design in the context of multi-core architectures and distributed applications. Where appropriate formal notation will be used for specification.

Serious maths in the latter sentence.

Rigorous Systems – This module introduces the role of formal systems in rigorous software development and develops base-level skills using a contemporary formal method. The module covers the essential theoretical material (rationale, syntax, semantics) and provides practical experience using an appropriate software development tool.
The module is based on the formal specification language ITL.

Very serious applied maths.

Yes, loads of maths and logic and difficult technical things to do with them. Very little else though.

If you want to define an engineer as someone who is really good at applied maths then you're including economists.

[dyqik]

Yes, loads of maths and logic and difficult technical things to do with them. Very little else though.

If you want to define an engineer as someone who is really good at applied maths then you're including economists.

Don't be silly. Economics done properly is mostly a social science, with large mathematical models, and heavy statistics, plus some political theory on the side. Done badly, which seems to be the way it's done when there are solutions to be proposed, it's largely political theory with a bit of toy models on the side. The "social engineering" side really isn't rigorous enough to count as engineering yet.

OTOH, many of those software engineering course would be entirely appropriate on an electronic engineering degree, alongside other electronics courses. It's really a matter of emphasis and abstraction level.

By the way, my school design and technology lessons included food technology. "Cooking" can be engineering, and/or it can be craft. Depends on the context.

[sheldrake]

Basically, they don’t need to understand and apply science as a routine part of their job.

What do you think "computer science" is?

Was Turing a mathematician or a scientist?

A mathematician. But mathematics is a science

[sheldrake]

Yes, loads of maths and logic and difficult technical things to do with them. Very little else though.

If you want to define an engineer as someone who is really good at applied maths then you're including economists.

Economists dont create working machines.

[monkey]

Yes, loads of maths and logic and difficult technical things to do with them. Very little else though.

If you want to define an engineer as someone who is really good at applied maths then you're including economists.

Economists dont create working machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC

[sheldrake]

Yes, loads of maths and logic and difficult technical things to do with them. Very little else though.

If you want to define an engineer as someone who is really good at applied maths then you're including economists.

Economists dont create working machines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC

That does count as engineering fair enough. Not a common thing for an economist though

[plodder]

Coders don’t create machines either. They tell machines what to do.

[sheldrake]

Coders don’t create machines either. They tell machines what to do.

It's not a working machine without the software. It's a kind of blank slate.

[dyqik]

Coders don’t create machines either. They tell machines what to do.

Ever heard of a state machine? A virtual machine?

[plodder]

Coders don’t create machines either. They tell machines what to do.

It's not a working machine without the software. It's a kind of blank slate.

Like a tractor without a driver? Chefs, farmers, can you at least try and draw some sensible boundaries here?

[sheldrake]

Coders don’t create machines either. They tell machines what to do.

It's not a working machine without the software. It's a kind of blank slate.

Like a tractor without a driver? Chefs, farmers, can you at least try and draw some sensible boundaries here?

Not like a tractor without a driver. Like a complex Toyota tractor with one of those push-button ignitions that just won't start because it relies on software even for simple things like starting the engine. Or a laptop that doesn't even have basic bios so turning it on results in a blank screen you can't get past. Machines that can do no useful work.

[plodder]

Oh right, like a stage with actors, lights, an audience, all ready to go, but no script. Honestly, we’ve done this already.

[sheldrake]

Oh right, like a stage with actors, lights, an audience, all ready to go, but no script. Honestly, we’ve done this already.

Except the stage and the actors aren't a machine and the script isn't written using mathematical rules.

I think it's great that you've decided to learn all about writing software though. There's so many books I can lend you.

[plodder]

Normally I’d recommend a change of tack before banning someone from using analogies.

[sheldrake]

Writing software is both engineering and art tbh.

[sheldrake]

If Leonardo Da Vinci were alive today, he'd be a software engineer.

[bjn]

but engineering is taking science and applying it to solve problems

There is a science behind software engineering, it's called computer science, which is the study of algorithms. I happen to have a degree in it. It is a bit of an odd discipline, but the hard core bits are a branch of mathematics, blended with electrical engineering.

The application of that science allows people to create software to solve problems. By your definition, that's engineering.

You have a weird bug bear and go on about 'coding' as if it's just typing in the same way as writing third rate poetry on a laptop is typing. It's like saying an mechanical engineer making blue prints is just drawing lines and why is it different to an artist. What is being programmed, how it is being programmed, what is even possible to be programmed to solve a relevant problem is profoundly constrained.

A crappy hacker has no idea about any of that and creates crappy software. They are lucky they can do that because an entire army of competent software engineers have put together software engineering tools that means the worst hackers can put something together, even if it isn't engineered. Then again, the dickhead who put in crappy steel joists in my roof which cost a fortune to fix up was equally ignorant of structural engineering even if they got to use the tools and material of a real structural engineer to badly solve a problem of holding a roof up.

[Sciolus]

Can anyone remind us what the opposing viewpoints are in this thread?
Not that I'm bothered, it's just that it might be useful for new readers

Some people are saying that messy thing Q belongs in pigeonhole xvii, while other people are saying that messy thing 37 belongs in pigeonhole Φ. Or possibly the other way round.

[plodder]

but engineering is taking science and applying it to solve problems

There is a science behind software engineering, it's called computer science, which is the study of algorithms. I happen to have a degree in it. It is a bit of an odd discipline, but the hard core bits are a branch of mathematics, blended with electrical engineering.

The application of that science allows people to create software to solve problems. By your definition, that's engineering.

You have a weird bug bear and go on about 'coding' as if it's just typing in the same way as writing third rate poetry on a laptop is typing. It's like saying an mechanical engineer making blue prints is just drawing lines and why is it different to an artist. What is being programmed, how it is being programmed, what is even possible to be programmed to solve a relevant problem is profoundly constrained.

A crappy hacker has no idea about any of that and creates crappy software. They are lucky they can do that because an entire army of competent software engineers have put together software engineering tools that means the worst hackers can put something together, even if it isn't engineered. Then again, the dickhead who put in crappy steel joists in my roof which cost a fortune to fix up was equally ignorant of structural engineering even if they got to use the tools and material of a real structural engineer to badly solve a problem of holding a roof up.

No-one is suggesting computer science isn't a science, or that people who apply it aren't doing engineering. But your dickhead builder's coder equivalent is pretty common in coding and software, whereas you'd never ever find them in a professional engineering capacity. This because most coders don't need to understand computer science, which is why I'm suggesting it's inappropriate to label the whole coding profession as engineers.

[plodder]

Can anyone remind us what the opposing viewpoints are in this thread?
Not that I'm bothered, it's just that it might be useful for new readers

Some people are saying that messy thing Q belongs in pigeonhole xvii, while other people are saying that messy thing 37 belongs in pigeonhole Φ. Or possibly the other way round.

Some people are saying that in order to fit an Austin maxi into a pigeonhole we need to make it the size of a double garage.

[Gfamily]

Have we asked the pigeon what it thinks?

[sheldrake]

This because most coders don't need to understand computer science

What do you base this tenuous theory on ?

[plodder]

This because most coders don't need to understand computer science

What do you base this tenuous theory on ?

Ok, google "coding jobs" and you'll find loads of well paid examples like this: https://www.indeed.co.uk/m/viewjob?jk=a ... &from=serp

All they want is the ability to write html and manage teams using Agile etc, they don't ask about computer science at all.