OT: Crazy Programming

[Laura Creighton]

Max M
> 
> > If buildings were built like computer programs, every
> > building would be unique, not quite like any other
> > building ever built before, and using experimental
> > new materials and building techniques. And before
> > we'd got all the bugs out of one building, we'd be
> > charging ahead with the next one. Under those
> > conditions, I don't think the building industry would
> > have much of a reputation for reliability in their
> > products!
> 
> 
> Bridge building is much simpler than programming. For one thing the 
> customer knows what they want. They choose one bridge from one of 
> several in a competition. A model of the bridge can be built in 
> Cardboard so it can be seen.
> 
> And when the bridge is halfway done the customeres rarely asks for the 
> bridge to be 10 meters longer and with 4 lanes instead of 3.
> 
> If we only made the same kind of software for years and had been thought 
> in school exactly how to build that kind of software I would bet that it 
> would be great software.

Computer Programmers need to go out drinking with Civil Engineers more
often.  They will then get to listen to Civil Engineering students say
things like:

Programming is much simpler than Bridge Building.  For one thing, the
programmer only has to deal with mathematical forms, and the products
of his own mind.  Programs are not subject to physical laws, or
even geometric ones, all avenues are open to the creativity of the
programmer.

Moreover, real-life concerns rarely influence the programmer.  A new
government council, a change in suppliers, and the inevitable changes
in design that happens when one actually begins physical construction,
and hidden defects in one's design comes to light never bother the
programmer.  There are no sudden requirements to use one algorithm
rather than another.

If we only made the same kinds of bridges for years, and did not
design new ones every time, in the way that computer programmers
reply on well tested software libraries, and do not reinvent software
all the time then I bet we would make great bridges, rather than the
compromised designs we do now. 

--------

I move we spend more time in bars with members of other professions
that have to design things in the search for common understanding of
problems of design.  This 'is it an Art?/ is it a Science?/ Poof it's
Engineering!' debate goes on wherever designers discuss what they do.
It's better with beer.

Laura Creighton