[janstice]

But when you build a skyscraper you don’t one shot a completed building that stays static its entire life - you build a set of empty floors that someone else designs & fits out, sometimes years after the building as a whole is commissioned, usually several times in the lifespan of the superstructure.

And in the fitting out there often are things that exist only to get customer feedback (of sales), such as model apartments, sample cubicle layouts etc.

So yes, you are right that engineering can guide us to building something right first time - the hard part from software perspective is usually building the right thing, no the thing right.

An interesting analogy I came across once but could never find again is that with software systems, we’re not building a building, we’re designing a factory that produces an output - the example was a mattress factory that took in raw rubber feedstock & cloth and produced mattresses.

[0xbadcafebee]

Are you running a mattress factory? Or are you trying to run a hotel, and need mattresses, so you build a mattress factory? The "software industry" is that - dysfunctional with perverse incentives.

We should not be building the same software over and over and over and over. I've built the same goddamn app 10 times in my career. And I watch other people build it, making the same old mistakes over and over, like a thousand other people haven't already gone through this and could easily tell you how not to do it. In other engineering professions, they write that stuff down, and say "follow this plan" because it avoids all the big problems. Thank god we have a building code and not "agile buildings".

Agile sucks because it incentivizes those obvious mistakes and reinventing of wheels. Planning allows someone to stop and look up the correct way of building the skyscraper before it's 100 feet in the air with a cracked foundation.