She did! A few years ago I actually tracked down the source of that, which was an interview done for an obscure textbook and republished it on my blog if you are interested in learning more: https://catskull.net/interview-with-margaret-h-hamilton.html
>> During the early days of Apollo, software was not taken as seriously as other engineering disciplines. Though in fact we had a complex system of systems, we weren’t getting credit for what was a legitimate field. It was out of desperation I came up with the term, to say: “Hey, we’re engineering too.” It was an ongoing joke for a long time. Then one day in a meeting, one of the most respected hardware gurus explained to everyone that he agreed with me. The process of building software should also be considered an engineering discipline, just like with hardware. It was a memorable moment.
The idea that it was believed you could build a reliable and deterministic system without proper engineering methods, today, would get a laugh out of most people in the industry. Interesting how the times have changed.
And gate-kept by just as many. I wonder what she'd take more issue with. My understanding is she wanted to elevate people who work on software, not draw a line around it.
If I had the option I would prefer the term "engineer" be gatekept.
Terminology can help elevate something that's often overlooked, but if every programmer gets called a "software engineer" there's no way to distinguish the special stuff.
... an audacious choice of words according to the Austrian association of (real) engineers that get all red-faced and jittery even thinking about it! These peasants, bah, they can't even...
Up at the software level, the relevance of that distance is only the barest hint of physics behind a frosted glass window. This does not successfully counter what GP was saying.
Quite a few practical constraints on software are imposed by the physical world and our current ability to construct devices out of it. Working within those constraints to provide value that people can depend on isn't the worst definition of engineering I've heard.
I just wish that software engineers had a similar level of accountability that an engineer building something like a bridge is held to. When a negligent software engineer causes harm to people nothing typically happens. No real risk of lawsuits, or loss of license, or worry about their liability insurance. This also means that software engineers can't effectively push back when their bosses want them to implement things that they know are insecure or dangerous
Obviously, I won't delete this, I actually don't see why. I can critique anything I want. And it's not fair saying a famous person like Hamilton coined some term when probably she heard it from someone else.
Terming "software engineer" is nothing of genius, it's literally taking two logical words and mending them together. One day I will say "plumber engineer" and now I'm gonna be the one coined that term.
People blow things up out of proportion. They should focus on other things, of course, in my opinion.
She did! A few years ago I actually tracked down the source of that, which was an interview done for an obscure textbook and republished it on my blog if you are interested in learning more: https://catskull.net/interview-with-margaret-h-hamilton.html
out of curiosity, how'd you get your hands on the textbook?
This is incredible, thanks a lot for making it available for us.
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/13/margaret-...
>> During the early days of Apollo, software was not taken as seriously as other engineering disciplines. Though in fact we had a complex system of systems, we weren’t getting credit for what was a legitimate field. It was out of desperation I came up with the term, to say: “Hey, we’re engineering too.” It was an ongoing joke for a long time. Then one day in a meeting, one of the most respected hardware gurus explained to everyone that he agreed with me. The process of building software should also be considered an engineering discipline, just like with hardware. It was a memorable moment.
The idea that it was believed you could build a reliable and deterministic system without proper engineering methods, today, would get a laugh out of most people in the industry. Interesting how the times have changed.
Little did she know, the term would be co-opted by guys changing the color of a button on a web site.
And gate-kept by just as many. I wonder what she'd take more issue with. My understanding is she wanted to elevate people who work on software, not draw a line around it.
If I had the option I would prefer the term "engineer" be gatekept.
Terminology can help elevate something that's often overlooked, but if every programmer gets called a "software engineer" there's no way to distinguish the special stuff.
28 replies →
And then other guys made frontend dev tooling so complicated that it does actually require a software engineer to change the color of a button.
... an audacious choice of words according to the Austrian association of (real) engineers that get all red-faced and jittery even thinking about it! These peasants, bah, they can't even...
[flagged]
It becomes engineering when the software is flying to the moon and back.
Grace Hopper would like to show you her collection of nanoseconds.
Up at the software level, the relevance of that distance is only the barest hint of physics behind a frosted glass window. This does not successfully counter what GP was saying.
IMO social engineering is not engineering because it has nothing to with the physical sciences.
IMO reverse engineering is not engineering because it has nothing to with the physical sciences.
That's not how language works.
Quite a few practical constraints on software are imposed by the physical world and our current ability to construct devices out of it. Working within those constraints to provide value that people can depend on isn't the worst definition of engineering I've heard.
I just wish that software engineers had a similar level of accountability that an engineer building something like a bridge is held to. When a negligent software engineer causes harm to people nothing typically happens. No real risk of lawsuits, or loss of license, or worry about their liability insurance. This also means that software engineers can't effectively push back when their bosses want them to implement things that they know are insecure or dangerous
7 replies →
I hope you don’t write your own crypto.
[flagged]
It's not too soon to delete this, dude. The tone of this statement is cynical, reductive, and dismissive. I bet you're fun at parties.
Obviously, I won't delete this, I actually don't see why. I can critique anything I want. And it's not fair saying a famous person like Hamilton coined some term when probably she heard it from someone else.
Terming "software engineer" is nothing of genius, it's literally taking two logical words and mending them together. One day I will say "plumber engineer" and now I'm gonna be the one coined that term.
People blow things up out of proportion. They should focus on other things, of course, in my opinion.