Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: software engineers Message-ID: <10231@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET> Date: 8 May 89 08:04:25 GMT References: <854@odyssey.ATT.COM> Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond) Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization Lines: 24 In article emuleomo@yes.rutgers.edu (Emuleomo) writes: >Have you ever seen a civil engineer debugging a bridge after it has been built? I haven't personally seen a civil engineer work. However, I have read newspaper articles about bridges and various other structures that needed debugging after being built, that were debugged before being re-built, after falling apart. The real question is, why does it happen less often with bridges than with programs? Two answers that I know: 1. Engineering companies, government institutions, etc., generally have a better feel for the difficulties of other fields of engineering. They generally allow enough time for designs to be completed properly, and they occasionally reward good work instead of criticizing it. 2. There are fewer bridges than there are programs. -- Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp@relay.cs.net) The above opinions are my own. | Why are programmers criticized for If they're also your opinions, | re-inventing the wheel, when car you're infringing my copyright. | manufacturers are praised for it?