Talk:General Engineering Introduction/Design

Software
The bit about software and how it today is hacked by quacks and megalomaniacs is reversed. Software today is extremely Engineered, to me, more than it should be in some respects, it is correct that software started as an something of a craft but due to the simple nature of the code it has always beens structured, after it became dominant in corporations and enterprises (especially when dealing with tasks that could not fail) Engineering took over, to the detriment of creativity and productivity that previously ruled the sector, we got mired in UML diagrams and extremely focused in documentation, no doubt important but sometimes at the cost of the final implementation (over-Engineering). Most recent languages also suffer from catering to this mentality of modularity, replication and reuse, one should not need much further from how Object Oriented Programming evolved and is now in decline to functional languages. The text as presented makes it seem that we are still in the 80's, it ignores the failed Case revolution and that in Software Engineering has been proven not to address all requirements and solutions easily portable. Software development continues to be a craft, where experience, creativity and love for the art trumps the applicability of Engineered solutions. That is not to say that an Engineer will not be a excellent manager or Engineering has no place in software, just the contrary, replicability, patterning and system analysis is extremely important but mostly on the planing aspect and design on how to address problems... There is also an attempt in the tone of the text to link Engineering to certification, there is no such link, engineering is the use of specific replicable methodologies and solutions, with knowledge of the mathematical and natural sciences gained by study, experience, and practice (science) to use economically the materials and forces of nature for the benefit of mankind. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Structure
This section "Design" feels disjointed, like a bunch of thoughts with limited logical connection between them. Consider re-organizing, clarifying using sections/subsections, relocating content that might belong elsewhere, and/or removing content that doesn't belong in "Design". Maybe the name of the section is not appropriate. There is another Design section later in the book that seems more appropriately named. --Medelen8 (discuss • contribs) 02:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)