Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!male!grapevine!regenmeister!chrisp From: chrisp@regenmeister.EBay.Sun.COM (Chris Prael) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: bridge building (was Re: Documenting OO Systems) Message-ID: <1245@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> Date: 25 Apr 91 17:15:03 GMT References: Sender: news@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM Distribution: na Lines: 49 From article , by jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter): >>The high level of human creativity in every software >>enterprise as compared to the creativity involved in a static structure like >>a bridge makes me (IMHO) confident you're comparing tomatoes and avocadoes. > You miss my point--the high level of creativity required in software is > due to our not yet having a clue how to make writing software more like > building bridges. Bridge builders were undoubtedly VERY creative before > there was any grasp of how to build bridges. May I suggest that you both are missing a crucial point. I have been developing software for most of the last 25 years and I have worked for quite a few companies. From this experience, I have observed that most software developers display the same level of creativity as the average builder of culverts in CalTrans. I have also observed that it is a rare software developer indeed who displays the level of creativity that can be seen in the Golden Gate Bridge or the Alfa Romeo Alfetta GT. From watching my wife, who is a structural engineer, and her collegues, I would have to say that the average software engineer is somewhat less creative than the average structural engineer. If you look around a bit, you will probably conclude that the most creative engineering going on right now is by European automotive engineers and American aviation engineers. >>yet there are developers who play cowboy and ignore the >>helpful work done by others. > > Exactly my point--and I believe this is BECAUSE they regard themselves > as these creative geniuses who don't NEED discipline, science, etc, > when in fact they're really sort of emotionally retarded wannabee > artistes. Well said, and very true. >>Either they suffer from NIH syndrome or are >>simply ill informed. What can be done to reach the ill-informed practictioner? > Large calliber handguns come to mind. Perhaps a little extreem. From what I have seen, a lot of these people are educable. Most of them were put on the wrong track by "computer science" training in college and have never had the advantage of being trained by an engineer. If all they have ever seen is pseudo-scientists being technicians, that's all they will know how to do. The ones who won't learn you convey gently to the street. Chris Prael