I might point out that unless the welds are done at the right temperature, etc., for those bridges that the physicist's calculations will be for naught as the bridge will still fall down. The temperature affects the molecular structure of the steel and thus the strength of the welds. There is an analogy with software development in there somewhere. ;-)
On Sunday 13 November 2005 05:26 pm, James Gray wrote: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Woodhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2005 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Goedelian malaise >> I would venture a guess that the majority of the work in building a >> bridge is done by the construction workers who do not know or understand >> the principles of physics fully. > > That's a tricky one. I receive assignments (such as reformatting reports > or adding new columns) that are essentially mechanical (I almost said > "mindless"!) but I've worked on a number of projects requiring use of > complex data structures, entirely novel algorithms, and tricky > performance analysis, too. So it seems to be a mixed bag: sometimes we > are called on to be engineers, an sometimes we are called on to > construction workers. Unfortunately or fortunately, the trend today does > seem to favor transforming software development into "construction" > rather than an engineering discipline, and it is becoming increasingly > difficult to distinguish between architecture and management. Exactly what I was thinking when I wrote this. It is one way in which I think our profession is more primative than modern civil engineering. >> It may not even be necessary for the construction foreman who reads the >> blue prints to fully understand the physics. It is the civil engineers >> who must understand the physics. Or do they? > > Good question. My father was a construction worker, and he certainly knew > a lot more about physics than he probably realized. He may not have been > able to formulate it all mathematically, and he wasn't always right, > either. But it would be a mistake to underestimate the knowledge of a > journeyman construction worker. I agree. It would also be a mistake to overestimate the knowlege of physics of all of the construction workers on a project. >> People have been building bridges and cathedrals that do not fall down >> since well before Newton articulated the laws which you say are so >> important. > > Yeah...and they built a few that did fall down, too! That is true. But many have stood longer than I expect any of our 20th Century software to stand up. Modern bridges fall down too sometimes. >> Are we programmers the engineers or just the construction workers? The >> electronic computer is not as old as I am. Maybe we are asking a lot of >> such a young technology. Maybe we could make a better analogy with >> medieval cathedral builders whose work has withstood the test of time. >> At that time the distinction between the expert builder and the laborors >> was not as great as that between the civil engineer who designs a bridge >> and the construction workers. Who are we and what do we really need to >> know that will help make software better? > > Well, the computer is a bit older than I am, but not my much (I was born > in 1962). The cathedral analogy is a good one. It took time to develop > the flying buttress. Much of the technology that went into developing > cathedrals developed through a long process of trial and error and the > accumulation of folk knowledge. But would you really suggest that an > improved understanding of physics hasn't enabled us to build better and > safer structures? Would it be wise today for a construction firm to turn > its back on the discipline of engineering and when erecting, say, large > office complexes in earthquake (or hurricane) country? I did not mean to imply that knowlege of Newtonian physics has not helped modern civil and architectual engineering. I am convinced it has. I do not know of any laws of physics that have helped to improve software (unless you include software that is doing physics). I would, however, like to inject a note of skepticism about the laws of computer science to the extent they may be more like Aristotelian physics than Newtonian physics. Jim Gray ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members -- Nancy Anthracite ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
