McConnell: Software Engineering, Not Computer Science

Posted by Phillip Jackson in , , , , on 15 November 2009

Chapter 4: Software Engineering, Not Computer Science
“A scientist builds in order to learn; an engineer learns in order to build.”
— Fred Brooks



The chapter linked above challenged some beliefs that I hold to very tightly, but it also brought clarity and confirmation to notions that I’ve deduced myself and held for a long time. It’s a long article, but worth it. I won’t soon forget the House/Shed Comparison I expect.

As with everything I’ve read from McConnell his terminology can be vague and, therefore interpreted in vastly different ways by different people. For me, in the House/Shed Comparison, I consider McConnell to be referring to ‘Engineering’ as application design, not construction. So if one were to say: “Look‘a here buddy, I’m just constructing a shed, therefore I don’t need to implement SOLID principles, write patterned code, or create unit tests…” I will call BS. Because it’s not in the integrity of construction he is saying an insulated shed is over-engineered, but rather in its bloated feature set. Both the house and the shed need a solid foundation, square frames, and twice-measured lengths i.e. quality construction. It’s in the unnecessary amenity of insulation for the shed that McConnell finds over-engineering.

For those who think McConnell’s reference to “code-and-fix” means iterative development, I direct you to this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_and_fix.

But alas, to the point… ;)
Regardless of my interpretation, I’m curious to know yours.




Excerpts (for the ‘TLDR’-ers):
[…]
Engineering vs. Science
With only about 40 percent of software developers holding computer science degrees and practically none holding degrees in software engineering, we shouldn’t be surprised to find people confused about the difference between software engineering and computer science. […] Scientists learn what is true, how to test hypotheses, and how to extend knowledge in their field. Engineers learn what is true, what is useful, and how to apply well-understood knowledge to solve practical problems. Scientists must keep up to date with the latest research. Engineers must be familiar with knowledge that has already proven to be reliable and effective. […] An undergraduate science education prepares students to continue their studies. An undergraduate engineering education prepares students to enter the workforce immediately after completing their studies.
[…]
This puts computer science students into a technological no-man’s land. They are called scientists, but they are performing job functions that are traditionally performed by engineers, without the benefit of engineering training. The effect is roughly the same as it would be if you assigned a physics Ph.D. to design electrical equipment for commercial sale. […] We would expect the equipment designed by the physics Ph.D. to work, but perhaps to lack some of the robustness that would make it usable or safe outside a laboratory.
[…]
[workers educated as computer scientists] focus narrowly and deeply on minor considerations to the exclusion of other factors that are more important. They might spend two days hand-tuning a sorting algorithm instead of two hours using a code library or copying a suitable algorithm from a book.
[…]
The lack of professional development isn’t solely the software developer’s failure. The software world has become a victim of its own success. The software job market has been growing faster than the educational infrastructure needed to support it, and so more than half the people holding software development jobs have been educated in subjects other than software.
[…]
When a building is designed, the construction materials must suit the building’s purpose. I can build a large equipment shed to store farming vehicles from thin, uninsulated sheet metal. I wouldn’t build a house the same way. But even though the house is sturdier and warmer, we wouldn’t refer to the shed as being inferior to the house in any way. The shed has been designed appropriately for its intended purpose. If it had been built the same way as a house, we might even criticize it for being “over-engineered”—a judgment that the designers wasted resources in building it and that it actually isn’t well engineered.
[…]
Today’s pervasive reliance on code-and-fix development—and the cost and schedule overruns that go with it—is not the result of a software engineering calculation, but of too little education and training in software engineering practices.

This entry was posted on 15 November 2009 at 1:57 AM and is filed under , , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response.