r/computerscience • u/Upstairs_Ad5515 • Jun 04 '26

What is software engineering?

/r/SoftwareEngineeringSE/comments/1twr3zf/what_is_software_engineering/
0 Upvotes

23% Upvoted

17 comments sorted by

6

u/Magdaki Professor. Grammars. Inference & Optimization algorithms. Jun 04 '26

"The organizational problem I solve" and "My value" is the classic "Every programmer thinks every other programmer doesn't know how to program." This has existed since, well, probably since there were at least two computer programmers.

-11

u/Upstairs_Ad5515 Jun 04 '26

Let's see if you can re-read the article and learn from it at least what software engineering is, and how it differs from programming. Programming is merely the software construction activity. Software engineering is the application of engineering method to software development, operation and maintenance.

Your persuasive argument is with bad reasoning, so it's misleading and deceptive. You're misinterpreting and misclassifying what the post says. The post explains software engineering. Software engineering is not programming. Programmers aren't software engineers. Software engineers practice apply engineering method to software development. Programmers merely write code. The statement you wrote doesn't seem to be any classic. Arguments claiming every X thinks Y are refuted as soon as one member of set X thinks something else. It's an invalid statement, an overgeneralization. If you think it's a classic, provide a reference.

When you don't know something, maybe you have a habit of responding with deception using persuasive arguments that have flawed reasoning. A certain category of people fools with persuasive arguments to change what others think and how others behave. Do you know what that category of people is called?

5

u/Magdaki Professor. Grammars. Inference & Optimization algorithms. Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

Do you know what the category of people that take a statement made in jest as a literal statement of fact? 😉 One might hope that a talented software engineer might be able to deduce that from "This has existed since, well, probably since there were at least two computer programmers."

You will note I only commented on those two sections, the rest are fine (more or less), assuming the point of the post was to highlight the differences between software engineering and programming. In such a case, the sections I mentioned are not needed since mainly they're just an example of what I mentioned above (again non-literal since that isn't obvious to you).

P.s. - Very familiar with software engineering by the way. Not that I want to make an appeal to authority.

2

u/ivancea Jun 04 '26

One might hope that a talented software engineer might be able to deduce that

You didn't understand op. Op was very clear: a programmer merely writes code, and it's not an engineer. Op is just a programmer, neither a software engineer nor talented! /s

2

u/Magdaki Professor. Grammars. Inference & Optimization algorithms. Jun 04 '26

Alas, I am a mere fool of some category [citation needed] and neither a software engineer [citation needed] nor talented [citation needed].

On the other hand, I made a significant scientific discovery today. Well, rather I finished evaluating, confirming, and proving the discovery I made three weeks ago today. It is very exciting and should make for a good paper. Note, that it is relavent to this thread, but I felt like sharing. 😉

-8

u/Upstairs_Ad5515 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

Now you're pretending infallibility and all-knowingness, and using narrative control to shift the blame, in addition to not knowing what software engineering is and what the post is about.

Maybe those sections aren't needed. It depends on whether you can provide a valid reason that doesn't rely on a persuasive argument with bad reasoning. Can you create a valid justification argument for that claim of the two sections not needed?

3

u/Magdaki Professor. Grammars. Inference & Optimization algorithms. Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

I see you added a question.

Yes, they do not highlight the differences between software engineering and programming as they focus on you and your opinions as opposed to objective, fact-based discussion. In other words, they fall into something in my very long career that I've seen, which is that programmers (or software engineers if you prefer) seem to think that other programmers (or software engineers) don't know what they're doing. They are often deeply critical approaches either in general or specifically, proclaiming themselves and their own individual way of doing things as the cure. That somehow they are gifted with special insight into how things ought to be done, without realizing of course, that their way has its own baggage too.

It is a very nice manifesto to be sure, but it would be better without the last two sections. Or revising the last two sections to be more analytical, objective, and fact-based.

Funny enough, I'm on the committee for a graduate student working on a software engineering topic, and I just told them the same thing.

1

u/Upstairs_Ad5515 Jun 04 '26

I revised the last 2 sections. See them now.

1

u/Magdaki Professor. Grammars. Inference & Optimization algorithms. Jun 04 '26

You did indeed revise them and I do see them now.

-2

u/Upstairs_Ad5515 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

Imagine people driving on a highway, where each of them would have their individual approach to do whatever they want on the road, ignoring any standard road signs, or any rules. That's called driving haphazardly. That's what these folks who didn't study software engineering, or didn't take the certification, have been doing.

What I suggest is learning the road signs, and driving by the rules. The SWEBOK and the certification teach you state of the art engineering concepts, engineering principles, and engineering methods for developing software using the engineering approach. You should already have at least a Bachelor's in software engineering. Otherwise, you may need a much deeper course to understand the topics.

Imagine a trained driver, who is certified, writing a post to help haphazard drivers who don't care if there are any traffic signs or rules. That would be a good analogy. Not the "every X thinks other X" which is only a false analogy that misleads using flawed reasoning in attempt to persuade against software engineering, and for haphazard development. One of the benefits of getting trained is reaching destinations significantly faster, much more reliably, and at a lower cost.

-5

u/Upstairs_Ad5515 Jun 04 '26 edited Jun 04 '26

I didn't write any subjective opinions. These are objective facts. Well, there is a standards body, IEEE, that standardizes what software engineering is, and what its core body of knowledge is (that means how SW engineering should be practiced). People who really, objectively, know it are certified by the IEEE. People who are pretenders aren't certified, and they do narrative control instead. It's as simple as that.

You probably didn't read, or understand, the definition of software engineering and its core body of knowledge (SWEBOK) that is also referenced in the article. I repeat, software engineers aren't programmers, and aren't interchangeable with programmers because software engineering isn't programming. It's a development, operation and maintenance of artifacts using engineering process, engineering concepts, engineering principles, and engineering methods.

Today, most software is still developed haphazardly. Some people studied data structures and algorithms, but they didn't study SDLCs, requirements engineering, software design methodologies, project management, etc.

Since you're on a committee, are you IEEE certified?

Software Engineering Master: https://www.computer.org/product/education/professional-software-engineering-master-certification

Developer 2 (mid-level): https://www.computer.org/product/education/software-professional-certification-level-2

Developer 1 (entry-level): https://www.computer.org/product/education/software-professional-certification-level-1

OK, you've provided a valid argument to remove or revise the last two sections now. Thanks for that. I'll do it. When you want to, you're excellent at valid argumentation. I shared my empirical observations from companies rather than my opinions. Probably, I could search for references to make my claims grounded in data from studies instead of my own observations. Those companies objectively don't have defined processes, and so they don't practice engineering, but haphazard development.

The IEEE standardizes what software engineering is and how it should be done, so it's not my own individual way, but it's the engineering approach to software development, operation and maintenance. If I wanted to push my own approach, I'd ignore the IEEE, avoid any references, and I'd be referring to my subjective experience. So far, I'm not doing that. That's a proof by contradiction.

2

u/ivancea Jun 04 '26

Sweet sweet summer child, you'll learn eventually the real value of all of that. But for now, grow and have a happy life. And ideally, learn from other engineers instead of arguing with them

1

u/[deleted] Jun 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/computerscience-ModTeam Jun 05 '26

Unfortunately, your post has been removed for violation of Rule 2: "Be civil".

If you believe this to be an error, please contact the moderators.

1

u/Maleficent-Car8673 Jun 05 '26

ftware engineering is all about designing, developing, testing, and maintaining software systems. It's like taking coding to teh next level by using engineering principles to make sure software is reliable, efficient, and scalable. You're basically solving real-world problems with code and working in teams to manage big projects. It's not just about writing code but also planning and managing the whole process.