I think the author has some good points even though they have been told before. I do think, though, that in all fairness to all software engineers the comparison with buildings is too simplistic.
It is true that if the first design is awful, the engineers are to blame, but in reality I believe that most designs are - maybe not perfect - but at least suitable for the given problem. The biggest hurdle is when the requirements for the project changes, which could be compared to a regular house, that needs to hold a 70-story tall office building.
It is no problem to do that, but to do it on top of a regular house might not be too easy. Is this then due to bad design?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the author has some good points even though they have been told before. I do think, though, that in all fairness to all software engineers the comparison with buildings is too simplistic.
It is true that if the first design is awful, the engineers are to blame, but in reality I believe that most designs are - maybe not perfect - but at least suitable for the given problem. The biggest hurdle is when the requirements for the project changes, which could be compared to a regular house, that needs to hold a 70-story tall office building.
It is no problem to do that, but to do it on top of a regular house might not be too easy. Is this then due to bad design?