Further on the myth of "software engineering"
This is a direct consequence of the fact that all physical systems suck. Atoms suck, they can be split by nuclear fission. Molecules are even more unreliable, as your average joe can destroy them via chemical reactions. Living beings die of stuff which we don't even understand properly: we all know why kidneys fail, why the heart fails, heck, even something in the nature of cancer, but we're scarcely able to provide strong solutions for these entirely systemic problems.
Agriculture sucks, as crops engineered to feed the masses are infested by various little fuckers en masse.
All crafts suck. Even with sophisticated physical models, buildings will most certainly fail because of structural degradation. Bridges have been a bitch to build from Apollodorus of Damascus to date, and not much has changed; spaceships fail more often than they work; your car will run into a tree; heck, even your knife doesn't cut that bread the way you'd like it to. In short, nature is imperfect, and man-made things even more so, and to rub salt in the wound, it takes a shitload of work to make all these imperfect things.
Despite the happy unicorns uttered by Western media, computers haven't "gotten better" in time2. Even if we were to take just the hardware, in time it's gotten bigger in terms of design, more complex and more esoteric, so if anything, modern computers suck a lot more than the first ones made using integrated circuits3. I won't even bother to mention all those (micro)architectural "features" hardware vendors are throwing at the market nowadays, each such feature marks another pain in the proverbial4 ass.
And thus, all software sucks. It's been said before.
I'm not talking about the beautiful, platonic mathematical-logical abstractions that some people call software. Those are indeed elegant and sound and nice, but they are only so in theory5, that is, until someone starts implementing them on a physical computing machine. And that's not even counting non-deterministic phenomena such as random bit flips, just take the inherently unsound hardware-software interface that is the instruction set architecture and you have a set of basic abstractions that are a hell to build software on.
Since all software sucks, the list of illustrations of how it does is too ample to enumerate exhaustively, so we'll just limit ourselves to a very few examples, a good one being the Unix-C duo that is still haunting the world today. According to its author, Linux is a Unix that's not even Unix, while C has spawned dozens of dialects, each one more broken than the other, each one in its own way, in the name of solving this-problem-or-the-other.
There have been futile attempts to make software not suck, the most notable being the so-called "free software" movement started by Richard Stallman in the '80s. The core principles of this movement are ideological in nature, stating that people should have the freedom to do whatever they like with their computers6. From this thus follows that people may take their software as it is and try to improve it in an unambiguously useful manner, that is, in a manner more related to common sense than to the "cool factor". Why or how this didn't work are entirely different stories, but the fact is that nowadays the GNU people are consistently failing to adhere to their own principles.
On the other side of the ideological fence are the armies of "rockstar" programmers fueled by childish enthusiasm and hired specifically to make software suck. This can be grounded on the simple observation that Microsoft's latest software, or Google's, or some startup's for that matter, isn't getting any simpler. Quite the opposite in fact; any new "feature" added in some product only serves, or has the side effect of increasing "complexity", which in this case is another word for entropy.
Last but not least, software sucks harder than other engineering disciplines because programmers "like to" write code, but very few actually read it7. This way, programming is done for the sake of programming, not for the sake of making software suck less8, and for the sake of adding more code instead of adding more simplicity, the latter being after all the ultimate sophistication. The world is already full of billions of lines of badly written source code, so why do we need to write more? Ask yourself this question the next time you sit in front of your text editor.
Quite simply put, we can only start discussing software engineering after we stop just writing code and start trying to make software suck less. This much all other engineering disciplines have figured out9.
I wanted to make sure that this essay would get rejected from any respectable academic venue out there, so I made the abstract as abstract as possible, without however stripping it of its essence. What do you mean, that's the definition of an abstract? It doesn't even have any obscure technical words!↩
Unless you take "better" in its nowadays' Newspeak meaning, so "worse".↩
One might be tempted to say that the vacuum tube ones made back in the '40s were better due to the fact that they were simpler. Well, actually not necessarily: the first ICs, way before the whole VLSI craze, were far simpler and easier to maintain than the tube stuff. So that was a huge step forward for computer engineering; today's so-called advancements not that much.↩
Literal too, given the time most computer people spend sitting on their asses.↩
Although the theory itself is rather flimsy, and I'm talking about the fundamental theory of computing, not academic hogwash. Bear in mind that Turing and Church's thesis is just that, a mere thesis. Also bear in mind that via Gödel, the theory of computation has hard limitations such as the halting problem, and since Turing few truly relevant discoveries have been made in the field.
So that's like, what? The last seven to eight decades? Not to mention that reasoning and proving facts about computer programs -- or rather mathematical-logical models of computer programs -- simply doesn't scale unless you go down the abstraction rabbit hole.↩
In hindsight, the man's ideas were way, way ahead of their time, and many of them are still not properly understood by people claiming to adhere to "Free Software". Claiming that "open source has taken over the world" is very inaccurate, if not downright deceitful, given that a lot of today's computers running "open source" are usable only if and how some company or other lets them be usable. Not to mention the systemd bullshit that's slowly permeating other projects too.↩
In all honesty, because reading code is damn hard. But you know what else is hard? Thinking. So go ahead and read the crap you or others have written. Communication is a two-way lane, so learn to talk to your computer already.↩
In case you haven't been reading properly up until now, we oughta be making software suck less, but not in terms of "code is poetry". Sure, code readability is very important, but equally important to making software actually work -- in the sense of reliability, not in the retarded sense of "please restart your computer".↩