Maybe I’m just not good enough at paying attention, but for me it seems like you have to actually run into problems over and over and figure out how to avoid the problems. Then you end up being able to mentally simulate what problems you will run into, and design is basically all about avoiding future problems of various kinds (and balancing tradeoffs about which future problems to avoid and how much effort to put into each, whether you can solve multiple with one design play, etc).

▲ teekert 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I have this too, I have never been able to "do exercises" or "study a codebase". I need to be making something that I am excited about, then I'll learn, from examples, from wanting to be thorough and correct.

But sometimes I think I'm just not their yet, if I become able to read code like a book and really understand what happens, which often I don't, then perhaps I'll enjoy the process more.

▲ teiferer 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> for me it seems like you have to actually run into problems over and over and figure out how to avoid the problems

This shows how immature the field of software engineering is. Imagine bridges or houses were built like that. Or your surgeon was trained like that.

Over time, we hopefully develop estblished norms, but at the moment, things are too much in flux. Put 5 sw engineers in a room, pose a problem and you will get not just 5 different solution proposals, but there will likely be strong disagreements on which approach is a good one.

"I recognize a good solution when I see it" is just not good enough for a serious engineering discipline.

▲ hvb2 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Imagine bridges or houses were built like that. Or your surgeon was trained like that.

While I don't disagree with you in general, this does feel a bit off.

By that logic you can call the field of music immature, and all of the arts. I think the difference is that its easy to experiment without high costs.

I genuinely think that if building bridges was cheap and quick, the fastest way to learn was to try...

▲

nchagnet 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I generally agree with your point on ease of experimentation, but if we insist on calling it software engineering, then maybe the field needs to adhere to engineering principles, as the GP highlighted.

	▲	tuckerman an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I believe part of engineering isn’t over-engineering for the task at hand as well. If the costs of a “failure” are low/zero then the right thing can be to move quickly expecting some problems. I think the field could get better at knowing when costs are low (eg sometimes scalability, cheaper to change a database choice than rebuild a bridge) and where the costs are sometimes very high (eg security).

▲ sshine 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Imagine bridges or houses were built like that.

Bridge building is a lot more conservative when it comes to taking risk in the construction, but that is how we build bridges and lots of bridges collapse because of similar causes:

  - Design Deficiencies
  - Construction Mistakes
  - Maintenance Issues
  - etc.

An average of 128 bridges collapse annually in the United States. More than 17,000 bridges in America are considered "fracture critical" (vulnerable to collapse from a single impact).

▲ wqaatwt 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Imagine bridges or houses were built like that

If they could afford experimenting and have a few bridges collapse before they get it right with no significant negative consequences IMHO it wouldn’t be the worst way to learn.

Maybe even more so for surgeons, being able to experiment and fail in a risk free environment seems like a good thing.

▲ koonsolo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This shows how immature the field of software engineering is. Imagine bridges or houses were built like that. Or your surgeon was trained like that.

It's not that software engineering is immature, it's just more dynamic.

We are not the surgeon, we write the surgeon. We write a surgeon to fix a broken leg. Once that is done, we don't have to fix another leg. Now we need to reattach a finger. Once that is solved, maybe replace a kidney.

You cannot repetitively train or have strict rules for that, because every time it's something new. You need to have broad knowledge and experience to be able to fight the next unknown challenge. It's unknown because it's never been done before, or it has been done but your competitor will not reveal the details.

Building bridges or being a surgeon sounds very boring to me, since it's always the same (maybe some minor variants). Building software? Very much not the same.

▲ pixelworm 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is pretty much how I've learned up to this point (and will of course continue). Trying to learn from real world code will be a new experience for me. Not sure how valuable it will be but should be fun either way.

▲ globular-toast 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's kinda like saying you can learn to drive by just getting into a car, crashing then thinking about how not to crash it next time.

In reality both things are necessary. The car analogy doesn't hold for road driving because we drive well within the limits, but for racing it really is necessary to know exactly where the limits are. I don't think we should really be treating our profession like a race, though.

But if you don't read it's going to be an incredibly long slow process and a lot of car crashes and mangled gearboxes etc. So I say read, read, and read some more. Even if you don't see the point of it right now your experience will later find a place for it and you won't end up descending a hill for the first time not knowing to shift to a lower gear.

	▲	sim7c00 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		you mention a key point. profession. programmer doesnt really imply professional programmer. I'd aay if you do it for a living, certain tedious chores must be learned. the best programmers i know (professional) can all read code. they spent many junior years learning to read it, being on code auditing desk.... nowadays idk how the landscape looks, but for all of them they had to review and read code to find bugs before they were allowed to produce code (they all worked at same company ofc... so my view is limited!) i do feel such discipline is needed. they can always poke holes on my code no matter how many holes i plug :) - i am semi professional. i write code for work, but not production code. (experimental). i never learned to audit code and feel that makes it impossible for me to truly create production grade code

▲ chistev 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is it