Talk:Software engineer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Bharwad[edit]

sir. This Wikipedia are.. 100% wrong information... Please don't share people..wrong information share on.. bharwad people are False information is being spread by the enemies of society. So this is a request to stop. વિપુલ ભરવાડ (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

OK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Dijkstra and Parnas discussed about S.E. it seems not improper synthesis? for me.[edit]

Dijkstra gave a keynote at some conference called "on the cruelty of really teaching computer science" (you can search the discussion in the web). One of the points is that programming should use formal methods. He critisized software engineering, however Parnas clarified that the engineering principles are based in mathematical foundations. I don't remember Dijkstra's answer, but they agree in the point that a formal foundation is needed for software engineering, because the engineering principles need solid grounded methods to handle complex projects. A modular design is key here, and the formal methods are fundamental for building reliable complex software.

The problem is that many laymen believe that engineering is synonym of building. And engineering is word used in marketing. Many consultants say they do software engineering, but they don't have solid methods, they sell "snake oil". Other example is genetic engineering, which us amazing techniques but is not done using engineering principles, however synthetic biology is searching to systematically develop genetic constructions with a modular approach.

In my opinion the claim that there is an [improper synthesis?] in the part that discus what Dijkstra said, may be removed. Because he was not a dogmatic guy, all the contrary, he changed his mind when a good argument was given. But he was very careful to have a solid argument in his essays, so it was hard to argue against him.

He had many critics, many wich are really not oppositiors, but some are, and many of those have a very chauvinistic bias in their motivation. I don't know the reason, although I suspect that they come from people that have not read his essays carefully. Alan Key hates him, for his critissism to Object Oriented Programming, there is a video in youtube where Alan Key insults Dijkstra telling that he was arrogant and selfish, but that was false. Apart from the critics to OOP, Alan Key misundertood an essay called something like "from the fact that the see has to shores" where he gave an account on the differences in the development of computing in the USA and Europe. There is some chauvinistic response to that in the USA, but you can read it, and he said nothing wrong about the USA, but some persons like Alan Key had a wrong lecture of that essay.

Taking again the point of software enginnering, it is true that the term has been used as a part of a brand in many "software engineering consultants", which has an important economic interests deliberately confusing the use of what S.E. is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:107E:C:448B:6C69:1FD:1CE:D152 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This article is more about the Software Engineering Profession not about the Software Engineering Discipline[edit]

This article is biased to software engineering as a profession, but say very few about what software engineering is, and the different approaches. It should discuss the formal, semi-formal and informal approaches.

Many "consultants" will edit this article again and again, if it does not classify the different approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:107E:C:448B:6C69:1FD:1CE:D152 (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV, sources problems.[edit]

This article still has some NPOV and sources issues that need to be remedied. My last two edits [1] and [2] helped a little, I believe, but many such problems still exits (IMO). Agreement? Disagreement? Suggestions for improvement? -- John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC))

New photo needed[edit]

The main photo for this article carries the caption "A software engineer writing Java code," but there is no evidence that that the photo depicts a software engineer nor is there any evidence that the subject is writing Java code, or indeed writing any type of code. In fact, the caption even contradicts the filename for photo "Programmer_writing_code_with_Unit_Tests.jpg". Therefore, it is just a "pretty picture" and contributes nothing to the article. Now, if the subject could be shown (or even plausibly claimed) to be a notable software engineer, that would be different, but as it stands, I propose that the article needs to have a different photo (or even no photo). Discussion? -- John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC))

I see nothing wrong with the current photo; who says we need to show a notable engineer for a photo example of an occupation? The code on the screen she's sitting in front of is indeed Java, and whether or not she's writing it or she just sat down to look at someone else's monitor is pedantic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Do we need to replace the photo of Train driver with that of a notable train driver? How do we know he's actually driving the train, and not just sitting in the driver's seat while the driver is in the loo? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The caption for the photo you're referring to does not represent the person to be "driving the train." -- John (Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC))
If you think there is a better photo, you're welcome to suggest it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
That IS Java code. Just zoom the photo please, that's the evidence. That said, caption could be just "A software engineer writing code". Andretf (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)