> The industry is ripe for formality in this area as we've been going in circles for decades. We are dealing with computers here: virtual idealized worlds ripe for systematic formalism.
The "industry" is not about computers, it is about the use of computers to solve people's needs. You're confusing the engineering with the need.
Sure, people wrap up stupid or simple ideas in layers of abstraction, usually because they want to sell consulting.
But this article was more about looking beyond the boundaries of simple software development, needing to understand the context of where these systems operate.
Essentially, your argument is proving the early part of the article, where the author is comparing how some juniors are excellent "engineers" but can't move up to higher levels of abstraction, vs others that might not deal well with individual details, but have a better understanding of how the systems they develop need to interact with the rest of the world.
>The "industry" is not about computers, it is about the use of computers to solve people's needs. You're confusing the engineering with the need.
No I'm not. Every "need" can be formalized into a specification.
>Sure, people wrap up stupid or simple ideas in layers of abstraction, usually because they want to sell consulting.
So?
>But this article was more about looking beyond the boundaries of simple software development, needing to understand the context of where these systems operate.
And I'm saying this article is just listing examples and making analogies. It doesn't formally define what a system is and it doesn't talk about any ways to use this theory to optimize a system nor does it try to define what optimize is. It's just one out of a million articles that tries to talk about "design" and create an analogy or metaphor out of it while teaching the reader absolutely nothing new.
>Essentially, your argument is proving the early part of the article, where the author is comparing how some juniors are excellent "engineers" but can't move up to higher levels of abstraction, vs others that might not deal well with individual details, but have a better understanding of how the systems they develop need to interact with the rest of the world.
Yeah, I didn't care for his argument, he's free to make that analogy. Think what you want on how I "proved" it... The meaning of the metaphor itself is irrelevant to my topic, it's the fact that the metaphor exists and basically introduces nothing new to the concept of design that is my part of my complaint.
The "industry" is not about computers, it is about the use of computers to solve people's needs. You're confusing the engineering with the need.
Sure, people wrap up stupid or simple ideas in layers of abstraction, usually because they want to sell consulting.
But this article was more about looking beyond the boundaries of simple software development, needing to understand the context of where these systems operate.
Essentially, your argument is proving the early part of the article, where the author is comparing how some juniors are excellent "engineers" but can't move up to higher levels of abstraction, vs others that might not deal well with individual details, but have a better understanding of how the systems they develop need to interact with the rest of the world.