e-Columns

October '05: Engineering vs. Development

Sometimes word differences highlight major conceptual differences.  Here's how you know: (a) very few people use the two words interchangeably; (b) many people use one or the other dogmatically.  In this case, the use of these two different terms (Engineering vs. Development) reveals a deep divide in people’s attitudes toward how they see their profession and how they believe software applications should be created. 

The term software engineering was coined by F.L. Bauer, chairman of the 1968 NATO Software Engineering Conference. (source: Wikipedia)  The term "software development" is a bit more fuzzy: I have been unable to find a definitive etymology, although I believe it came into existence in the early 1960s.  (I would appreciate any information on this.)

If you find yourself in the Engineering Camp (and you refer to yourself as a software engineer), you probably believe that there is great deal of rigor and predictability in creating software.  The word “science” comes to mind.  You probably believe that software engineering process is analogous to the process of designing hardware or electronic products. 

If you are in the Development Camp, you likely believe that creating software is more of an evolutionary process.  The word “art” might come to mind.  Development people think of software development as a unique discipline with a few historical precedents, and that it need not follow the best practices from engineering or other fields.

The major software processes reflect these attitudes.  Agile and Rapid Prototyping reflect a bias toward people who identify with Development.  They take advantage of newer software tools and.methodology.  This is in opposition to the classic Waterfall or Linear method, which mirror traditional engineering processes.   

With the recent success of Agile for many companies, Development seems to be consolidating its position as the likely terminological victor.  However, I believe, Development proponents should not get swept up in the spoils: they would benefit from borrowing the best in terms of rigor and process from engineering disciplines, and learning from the hundreds of years of engineering systems that had little to no room for failure.