That's the difference between programming and software engineering.
A software engineer should be able to talk directly to customers to capture requirements, turn that into spec sheet, create an estimate and a bunch of work items, write the whole system (or involve other developers/engineers/programmers to woek on their work items), and finally be able to verify and test the whole system.
That entire role is software engineering. Many in the industry suck at most of the parts and only like the programming part.
I think the hardest part is requirements gathering (e.g. creating organized and detailed notes) and offloading work planned work to other developers in a neat way, generally speaking, based on what I see. In other words, human friction areas.
> That entire role is software engineering. Many in the industry suck at most of the parts and only like the programming part.
I'm always amused when I read anecdotes from a role siloed / heavily staffed tech orgs with all these various roles.
I've never had a spec handed to me in my career. My job has always been been end to end. Talk to users -> write spec into a ticket -> do the ticket -> test the feature -> document the feature -> deploy the feature -> support the feature in production from on-call rotation.
Often I have a few juniors or consultants working for me that I oversee doing parts of the implementation, but thats about it.
The talking to users part is where a lot of people fall down. It is not simply stenography. Remember most users are not domain/technical experts in the same things as you, and it's all just a negotiation.
It's teasing out what people actually want (cars vs faster horses), thinking on your feet fast enough to express tradeoffs (lots of cargo space vs fuel efficiency vs seating capacity vs acceleration) and finding the right cost/benefit balance on requirements (you said the car needs to go 1000 miles per tank but your commute is 30 miles.. what if..).
> I've never had a spec handed to me in my career.
We call those places "feature factories".
I have been required to talk with many in my life, I have never seen one add value to anything. (There are obvious reasons for that.) But yet, the dominant schools in management and law insist they are the correct way to create software, so they are the most common kind of employment position worldwide.
Careful with that though. The guy whose entire job is to "take requirements from the customers and bring them to the engineers" really does get awful tetchy if the engineers start presuming to fill his role. Ask me how I know.
Nothing much to tell. About 10 years ago on another job, I wanted more context in what I was building, so I suggested shadowing a user so I could see what they actually did, what value the software provided, and where the pain points were. A business analyst attached to my team became somewhat upset because she felt that impinged on her job. So there went that idea.
I largely agree with you. Yes there is ordering but there is no breaking away or denouncing. If you don't, you are always vulnerable to an upstarts who holds you accountable on those parts.
But that said, it's really commendable that the pope is trying.
Denouncing is an odd word to use or expect. A a Christian isn't going to "denounce" the Bible, even if it's the Old Testament.
I think the proper way to put it is seeing the Old Testament through the vision of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and fulfillment of the Old Testament, which itself is complicated and confusing. It really confused St. Paul when he realized through his vision the Truth, and it took time for him to reconcile his knowledge of Scripture with the reality of Christ.
Regardless, too many Protestants find that hard, because that admits that Christ fulfilled the Jewish faith, and that is "antisemitic"...see Ted Cruz as an example of that opinion. He thinks fulfillment theology is some sort of error, but it's exactly what the apostles came to believe and practice.
Anyway, I hope more Christians come to listen to the current Pope. I could understand ignoring Pope Francis, as he was relatively inconsistent and incoherent, especially for English speakers, but Pope Leo has not shown the same negatives yet.
Many Catholics were Democrats, although their recent insanity in the last 10 years made many realize the Democrats have nothing resembling them.
Many Catholics currently feel politically lost, as weird as that is. You have so many "Catholics" running around DC, but few of them can or will regurgitate any of the teachings of the Church, Biden being the most recent prominent example.
Many are hopeful that JD Vance might finally fill that gap, but atheists and Evangelicals will probably keep their alliance growing rather than permit traditional Catholicism to have a revival politically.
Please elaborate what semi-perverde form of Catholicism JD Vance follows.
Biden promoted direct theology against church teaching. The most obvious was his public and private stance on abortion, and beyond that, the actual work he did to bring about more evil through that dark ritual.
All I know is I never want to hear another person talk about how my personal electrical usage is excessive after all the power usage needed for these data centers. My house should be able to feel comfortable in the summer if we're building these many data centers.
Since no-one bothered to answer, the way the license was written did not disclaim any warranty. Sure, US jurisprudence might beg that there is no implied warranty, but most jurisdictions would interpret that as having unlimited warranty. In most places, what-you-pay is not the default to warranty claims, but instead focuses on what are the actual damages to the user. Notably, Australian/NZ and EU (especially Germany and Austria) has extremely strong consumer protection laws which also covers software, and WTFPL didn't even attempt to limit liabilities.
NB: For reference, here's the disclaimer for several popular licenses:
MIT:
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
GPLv3:
15. Disclaimer of Warranty.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
16. Limitation of Liability.
IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.
If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.
CC0 (just to drive the point home):
4. Limitations and Disclaimers.
(Subsection a (which focused on trademarks and patents) omitted for brevity.)
b. Affirmer offers the Work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the Work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including without limitation warranties of title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non infringement, or the absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the present or absence of errors, whether or not discoverable, all to the greatest extent permissible under applicable law.
C# does not support adding interfaces to foreign types. It does support extension classes to add methods and properties to a type, but nothing that adds fields or changes the list of interfaces implemented by a type. Rust supports this as well, because you can use traits this way.
Dependency injection is a popular solution for this problem, and you can do that as well in Rust. It requires (again) that the API is designed for dependency injection, and instead of interfaces and is-a relationships, you now have "factories" producing the implementation.
This makes me wonder why squatter's rights are not a thing here...but I don't know much about the current and previous legal status of the open genres like OpenTTD.
A software engineer should be able to talk directly to customers to capture requirements, turn that into spec sheet, create an estimate and a bunch of work items, write the whole system (or involve other developers/engineers/programmers to woek on their work items), and finally be able to verify and test the whole system.
That entire role is software engineering. Many in the industry suck at most of the parts and only like the programming part.
I think the hardest part is requirements gathering (e.g. creating organized and detailed notes) and offloading work planned work to other developers in a neat way, generally speaking, based on what I see. In other words, human friction areas.
reply