I disagree; Most software engineering is CRUD. Bioinformatics is CRUD with Biology. Trading systems is CRUD with FIX. High performance computing is CRUD across clusters. Game programming is CRUD with DirectX/OpenGL. Even compiler design and Linux kernel is CRUD, except low-level CRUD with assembly or device-drivers.
Anytime you start doing something novel, you are no longer a software engineer; you are a computational biologist, quant, game designer or computer scientist. It's not about splitting hair but having the domain knowledge in addition to coding skills. (Because let's not kid ourselves, programming is easy) If people insist on elevating themselves, then it's their prerogative. But since the market is right and is programming skills are becoming a commodity, I would rather be rich than popular.
I think you're stretching the meaning of "CRUD" far beyond its useful range. CRUD is a fairly specific term that refers to a database with a user interface. There are a great many applications that are built around this basic idea. Software like the linux kernel superficially resembles a CRUD application, at a high level, and you could identify elements that are like a CRUD application, but most of the hard problems solved by the linux kernel bear little resemblance to the class of web applications called to mind by the term "CRUD."
Fine, I guess I'm referring to computer scientists then. You're playing semantics.
Edit: Actually, there are no CRUD jobs in kernel development. There aren't CRUD jobs in a lot of fields. There aren't any CRUD jobs in database design and development. There aren't any CRUD jobs in compiler design. Any argument to the contrary betrays a fundamental ignorance of what CRUD means[1].
Over-simplify even more and we have a generic verb... Not only software engineering, everything is CRUD!
A baker does CRUD with bread, a surgeon does CRUD with people's organs, a dentist does CRUD with teeth, and a physicist simply does low-level CRUD at an atomic level.
By stating it this way it sounds simple, but you know, the devil is always in the details...
Huh, I don't really feel defensive at all. I simply don't feel the need to justify computer science as a discipline or software development as a profession. I originally came into college as a physics major and am doing theoretical computer science (math) as a depth focus in my major. These are generally thought of as the "hard" fields -- but I don't find any of them harder than computer science. Computer science just doesn't strike me as a field that needs defending. If it were easy there wouldn't be so few good practicing it.
He doe have a pretty straight forward tone and in writing comes off as a little condescending, regardless of that there is one gem in his message that I agree with:
It's not about splitting hair but having the domain knowledge in addition to coding skills.
That one I would have to say is pretty spot on, domain knowledge adds a lot of value to a developer.
As for the it's all CRUD, I think that is a oversimplification at best. Software development can be rolled up into patterns and best practices but to oversimplify it down to it's all CRUD is a little beyond the reality of the duties of the role.
Comments
I disagree; Most software engineering is CRUD. Bioinformatics is CRUD with Biology. Trading systems is CRUD with FIX. High performance computing is CRUD across clusters. Game programming is CRUD with DirectX/OpenGL. Even compiler design and Linux kernel is CRUD, except low-level CRUD with assembly or device-drivers.
Anytime you start doing something novel, you are no longer a software engineer; you are a computational biologist, quant, game designer or computer scientist. It's not about splitting hair but having the domain knowledge in addition to coding skills. (Because let's not kid ourselves, programming is easy) If people insist on elevating themselves, then it's their prerogative. But since the market is right and is programming skills are becoming a commodity, I would rather be rich than popular.
I think you're stretching the meaning of "CRUD" far beyond its useful range. CRUD is a fairly specific term that refers to a database with a user interface. There are a great many applications that are built around this basic idea. Software like the linux kernel superficially resembles a CRUD application, at a high level, and you could identify elements that are like a CRUD application, but most of the hard problems solved by the linux kernel bear little resemblance to the class of web applications called to mind by the term "CRUD."
Fine, I guess I'm referring to computer scientists then. You're playing semantics.
Edit: Actually, there are no CRUD jobs in kernel development. There aren't CRUD jobs in a lot of fields. There aren't any CRUD jobs in database design and development. There aren't any CRUD jobs in compiler design. Any argument to the contrary betrays a fundamental ignorance of what CRUD means[1].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create,_read,_update_and_delete
Over-simplify even more and we have a generic verb... Not only software engineering, everything is CRUD!
A baker does CRUD with bread, a surgeon does CRUD with people's organs, a dentist does CRUD with teeth, and a physicist simply does low-level CRUD at an atomic level.
By stating it this way it sounds simple, but you know, the devil is always in the details...
It's funny how defensive your comment makes me feel. Probably because there is a bit more truth to it than I would like.
Huh, I don't really feel defensive at all. I simply don't feel the need to justify computer science as a discipline or software development as a profession. I originally came into college as a physics major and am doing theoretical computer science (math) as a depth focus in my major. These are generally thought of as the "hard" fields -- but I don't find any of them harder than computer science. Computer science just doesn't strike me as a field that needs defending. If it were easy there wouldn't be so few good practicing it.
He doe have a pretty straight forward tone and in writing comes off as a little condescending, regardless of that there is one gem in his message that I agree with:
It's not about splitting hair but having the domain knowledge in addition to coding skills.
That one I would have to say is pretty spot on, domain knowledge adds a lot of value to a developer.
As for the it's all CRUD, I think that is a oversimplification at best. Software development can be rolled up into patterns and best practices but to oversimplify it down to it's all CRUD is a little beyond the reality of the duties of the role.