by lido on 12/9/21, 3:23 AM with 3 comments
by GianFabien on 12/9/21, 7:08 AM
Such systems are deigned by starting with a top-level goal/problem and the decomposing the solution through a series of layers. The construction then takes place from the most granular low-level components.
In the naive interpretation of the word "generalist" you would be conflating a chemical engineer with an aeronautical engineer. But when you are build a petroleum refining plant you want chemical engineers to be dictating the top level design whilst for a wind-farm you would want aeronautical and electrical engineers doing the top-level design.
Software engineering mostly deals with intangible "objects" so the rigid distinctions are rarely enforced. Unlimited degrees of freedom leads to many amazing possibilities and also the biggest disasters.
by SolubleSnake on 12/9/21, 2:17 PM
I studied computer science at one of the best U.K. universities but I currently work at a multinational engineering group in a team of chemical, mechanical and electrical engineers and I much prefer this kind of thing to the ‘tech’ industry.
The wanky recruitment processes with all the crap that goes on are actively insulting. Where I work it’s more like ‘this is what I’ve done before. This is what I’m going to do for you. Watch this!’ And then you get on with it.
by j_not_j on 12/9/21, 1:44 PM
There is a useful (but general) definition there.
It is not wrong to be doing system engineering in a purely software context. There is more to know.