Who gets higher salary a Java Programmer or a C++ Programmer?

[LR]

LR wrote:

a) There is some tension about where to put math.

I didn't think so, but this thread has clarified that for me.

Some place it with the sciences, others don't.

I don't. I tend to think of science as dealing with physical phenomena
and math dealing with, for lack of a better word, abstraction.

I suppose there's some meta-argument about math being a physical
phenomena itself, which might be very interesting and even useful in
some contexts, but maybe not this one.

All agree that it is somewhat different. On the
other hand, each science in itself seems to be different from the others.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. All of the sciences are subject to
the same physical laws, aren't they? Even if we don't understand those
laws? Even if the ideas in some of them are somewhat unrealistic and
abstract models themselves? Like say the concept of an electron as a
particle, useful in some contexts, pointless in others? The ideas in
science still have their purpose as a referent to the physical world.
And if they appear to differ, maybe that difference is in the models
that the scientists in each field use, their mental shorthand? But I
certainly believe if a difference between two fields of science
manifested itself as an inconsistency, science as a whole could not
tolerate that situation, it would have to be corrected.

I don't think that math is the same as this.

b) Looking for physical, chemical, or biological knowledge in programs, you
will find that there is quite a few programs that incorporate exactly that.

I find that I have a tremendous amount of trouble communicating the
particular idea I am trying to explain here.

I do not debate that people create applications that calculate things
about the physical world.

But I haven't run into an example of them using some law (principle, or
whatever word we'd choose for this concept) of science to create the
software itself, the way an engineer applies physics to build a bridge.

E.g., the software that NASA uses to guide space probes to other planets
clearly incorporates a lot of Newtonean mechanics.There are programs to
compute orbitals for molecules. Those programs embed quantum mechanics to a
large degree (although most of the program is probably devoted to top-notch
techniques of number crunching and PDE solving).

Of course there are programs that calculate these things but Newtonian
and quantum mechanics aren't used by software developers to create the
software itself. Or at least I don't know of an instance of that.

Similarly, much of the software of today is embedded in devices. If you
drive a modern car, chances are that the anti blocking system for your
brakes has a computer chip somewhere. The software therein probably
benefits a lot from physical knowledge about breaking.

Certainly, it will perform calculations about this.

Any sort of knowledge will find its way into software (e.g., software for
transactions between banks incorporates much knowledge about the particular
kinds of transactions involved). Scientific principles are no exception.

I agree that there is software that performs calculations that have to
do with physics and software that performs calculations having to do
with banking. No one claims that the science of banking (not AFAIK a
real term) is used to create the banking software simply because it does
calculations related to banking.

I know that I have a lot of trouble explaining what I mean here exactly,
so if something isn't clear to you, it's almost certainly my fault. If
it isn't clear please let me know and I'll try to clarify.

LR

 

[Keith H Duggar]

I'm not familiar with most of these and I had to look most of them up.
I'm still in the process of looking some of them up. I am unfortunately
pressed for time so I regret that I can't give each of these the
attention they deserve. So briefly, very briefly:

It seems we'll need to wait until you have more time because:

[snip categorizations of the several scientific principles]

I'm certain that I've overlooked some obvious point or made some
mistake. Please feel free to point those out.

fails to make any point as far as I can see. Did you have a
point you were trying to make?

Ok, perhaps you got me. But it's not, I don't think, a scientific law
or principle. Maybe it should be. Or you haven't offered proof of the
law, or shown how it's applied to the production of software.

Murphy's Law is applied regularly in engineering disciplines
including software engineering. I do not see much of a need to
"show" this any more than I see a need to show that algebra is
used often in graph theory or combinatorics. That is to say it
is such an obvious fact to anyone with a engineering education
that "showing" it seems trite.

On the other hand, if you are largely (or nearly completely)
ignorant of what engineering involves, how engineering is done,
how engineering is taught, how it relates to science, etc, then
I might be more patience to offer you a bit of free education.
But only if you 1) admit that you are ignorant 2) demonstrate
an open mind and willingness to learn 3) provide an honest
estimate of your current degree of knowledge.

(1) is crucial to establishing the right mindset and attitude.
(2) is obviously necessary in a newsgroup context. (3) is will
help us find an appropriate starting point.

Finally, it would be a kindness and one very helpful to me if
you state honestly what your goal is. Do you seek to learn? Do
you seek to persuade? Do you seek to troll? Do you seek to pass
time? Do you see to reinforce your existing prejudices? Do you
seek to "prove" that you are smart? Do you seek to show that
others are stupid or naive? etc.

KHD

 

[LR]

I'm not familiar with most of these and I had to look most of them up.
I'm still in the process of looking some of them up. I am unfortunately
pressed for time so I regret that I can't give each of these the
attention they deserve. So briefly, very briefly:

It seems we'll need to wait until you have more time because:

[snip categorizations of the several scientific principles]

I'm certain that I've overlooked some obvious point or made some
mistake. Please feel free to point those out.

fails to make any point as far as I can see. Did you have a
point you were trying to make?

In the context of this discussion? I'm trying to point out that I don't
think that software development is an engineering discipline and I
suspect it cannot be one.

Murphy's Law is applied regularly in engineering disciplines
including software engineering.

Please be specific. How is it applied in engineering? How does it
qualify as a scientific principle? What physical phenomena is it related to?

I do not see much of a need to
"show" this any more than I see a need to show that algebra is
used often in graph theory or combinatorics. That is to say it
is such an obvious fact to anyone with a engineering education
that "showing" it seems trite.

I don't have an engineering education.

On the other hand, if you are largely (or nearly completely)
ignorant of what engineering involves, how engineering is done,
how engineering is taught, how it relates to science, etc, then
I might be more patience to offer you a bit of free education.

But only if you 1) admit that you are ignorant

I cheerfully admit that I am ignorant and my ignorance is vast.

2) demonstrate an open mind and willingness to learn

Please tell me how this can be demonstrated.

3) provide an honest estimate of your current degree of knowledge.

Isn't that redundant? I mean given item 1? And if not, and I am
ignorant, how can I presume to do this?

(1) is crucial to establishing the right mindset and attitude.

Then it would seem that I completely in the right frame of mind and I
have the proper attitude.

(2) is obviously necessary in a newsgroup context.

I think this is too narrow. Frankly I find it a requirement in almost
every aspect of my life.

(3) is will help us find an appropriate starting point.

My personal view is that the beginning is always the best point to start.

Finally, it would be a kindness and one very helpful to me if
you state honestly what your goal is.

This implies a level of self-knowledge that my ignorance might not
allow, but I'll try.

Do you seek to learn?

I think that I am always seeking to learn. Many things. However, I have
to admit that I one of the things that I have learned over the years is
that my mental abilities are not unlimited. Also, I am not the smartest
person I know.

Do you seek to persuade?

I don't know the answer to this. I think it may be beyond my abilities
to persuade people. Even in situations where people tell me that they
think I'm right, they very often stick to their own
acknowledged-to-be-wrong opinions. So I'm not sure that I can do that,
although I think I would like to be able to.

Do you seek to troll?

No. At least I don't think so. It seems like a pointless, obnoxious and
boring thing to do. Although, I understand there are people who troll as
a hobby. What gratification they derive from this I cannot say.

However, I do enjoy the occasional tongue in cheek comment.

Do you seek to pass time?

Always. With as much pleasure and enjoyment as I can manage, either at
work or play. Is it possible not to do this? What would the alternative be?

Do you see to reinforce your existing prejudices?

Prejudices? Although I take exception to the word "prejudices" it may be
besides the point of the answer, which in this case is: Yes and no.

Do you seek to "prove" that you are smart?

Is it even possible to do this? Besides which, I said that I don't
think I'm very persuasive.

Do you seek to show that others are stupid or naive?

I think that this is so obvious that it need not be proved. But I
wouldn't limit it to others, I'd include myself too.

etc.

I'm not sure what you wanted by etc., but I would appreciate it, if my
answers incline you to make good on your offer, if you would answer the
questions you asked too. I would like to know how you think, so that I
may better understand what you say.

Should my answers not incline you to make good on your offer, then at
least you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you provided an
interesting opportunity for self-exploration, which I found an education
in itself.

LR

 

[Martin Gregorie]

I have read a bit about them. Sorry, but I really am quite confused now.
You said that they ignored wind loading and I agreed that they might
not consider fluid interactions or wind loading. Perhaps you object to
the redundancy?

Could you please explain to me where we disagree?

You seemed to be saying that wind load calculations were purely an
optional extra to be undertaken if there was any cash left in the design
kitty.

I disagree. Including an engineering project's operating environment in
the design calculations is mandatory: the engineer is culpable if a known
hazard or constraint is overlooked. This applies equally to software and
bridges.

 

[James Kanze]

I didn't think so, but this thread has clarified that for me.

I don't.

So you're in a minority of one. All of the standard definitions
consider it science.

Obviously, if you redefine science, and redefine principles, you
can come up with definitions such that software engineering does
not use "scientific principles". But that's just playing word
games, and doesn't help either understanding nor communication.

I tend to think of science as dealing with physical phenomena
and math dealing with, for lack of a better word, abstraction.

What physical phenomena are involved in such sciences as
economic science, or psychology, or sociology.

 

[Martin Gregorie]

No, he said they might not - and those examples clearly show that in
some cases they didn't. And why not? Perhaps budget was a factor, as he
suggests - the client didn't want to pay to have the job done properly.

I don't think such considerations are optional: neglecting them in civil
engineering can kill people. An ethical engineer should walk away from a
project if the client tries to exclude them.

But as you imply, nobody could reasonably disagree that bridge engineers
*should* consider wind and water, and i would imagine they almost always
do.

I think they are mandatory. An engineer to excludes known hazards from
consideration is negligent.

There are grey areas, of course. Horizontal oscillations in a bridge
weren't considered design constraints when London's Millenium Bridge was
built but I bet they are now.

Metal fatigue was not fully understood at the time of the Comet crashes
but this one gets very murky: the original design called for round window
corners, which was overridden on cost grounds by de Haviland management,
who insisted on rectangular windows. The crashes were due to catastrophic
metal fatigue cracking that started from the corners of cabin windows.

I think you may have been attaching different meanings to the precise
words used, that's all.

The disagreement was on what design inputs are mandatory rather than on
shades of meaning.

 

[James Kanze]

Despite what the Civ2 tech tree may say, the building of
bridges by Romans and medievals was not done without the aid
of physics. Indeed, the mechanics needed to build bridges,
siege engines, and other such staples of the ancient world was
well advanced in classical Greece. They didn't have calculus,
or quite such an integrated picture of physics, but they had
plenty of quantitative rules.

I think that that's really Ian's point. The Romans didn't have
modern physics, but that didn't mean that they didn't use
scientific principals when they built their bridges.

 

[James Kanze]

I would argue "no".  For the most part, bridges are built up
from pre-defined and well-understood modules with limited
options and provable behavior.

Aren't programs built up from pre-defined and well-understood
motules with limited options and provable behavior. I mean, I
don't reinvent std::vector each time I need it.

You might get an artist's rendering drawn one line at a time.

Even if we do grant your point, the analogy is not valid.  I
don't drive over a bridge blueprint.  The blueprint is the
design document.  The bridge is engineered.  With software,
that "hand-crafted" artistry is exactly what I am driving on.

You don't use C++ code, either; C++ doesn't run on my machine.
C++ is just the blueprint for the machine code (which in turn is
really just a blueprint for the way some electrons are going to
move).

 

[Martin Gregorie]

I think that I'll stand by what I wrote, with the exception of the cause
of the Tay's failure. Since I am still not sure what you understood from
what I posted, please feel free to ask me to amplify or clarify and I
will be happy to make the attempt. Otherwise, I shall be glad to wallow
quite contentedly in my hole.

As I've just explained above, what I didn't like was that I read into
your statement the idea that consideration of known hazards/constraints
might be optional when designing something. IMO that's never optional
regardless of what is being designed.

 

[James Kanze]

No, I argue that C++/Java programmers do help design the
application.

But doesn't this depend on the process. In most cases I've
seen, the software developers are responsible for many aspects
of low level design. But it's not a given; a process could have
a separate design team, which specified everything in detail, to
the point where the developers only had to "pisser les lignes";
there responsibility wouldn't be much more than that of a
bricklayer.

 

[James Kanze]

Which ones?

I don't know about the US, but in Europe, it is generally
illegal to appropriate a title that you don't have. In Germany,
for example, I cannot claim that I'm a Dipl. Ing., because I
don't have that title.

In most cases, the simple title "engineer", without further
qualifications, is not an academic title, so it doesn't depend
on a degree. Never the less, some qualification is expected.

If you are speaking of the United States, one has the First
Amendment right to call oneself whatever one likes.

Where does it say that in the first amendment? I can't find it.

I can call myself President of the United States or God,
should I so choose.  (Since no one agrees on what or if God
is, that last one has no conceivable actionable consequences
at law.)

I don't know about God, but you cannot enter into a contract as
the President of the United States; only one person has a legal
right to that title.

Closer to home, you cannot open an office as a doctor unless you
have legally recognized qualifications.

What one calls one's profession or business may, of course, be
a different matter.

What you call yourself in private circles probably won't cause
any problems, as long as no one decides to prosecute. If you
present yourself publicly as an M.D. however, you'd better have
the corresponding qualifications, or you'll have legal problems.

 

[Martin Gregorie]

Are doctors required to belong to a professional association?

Yes. If they are sufficiently bad they are struck off, i.e. kicked out of
the association, and can no longer practice medicine. Is is a criminal
offense to practice medicine of you're not a member of the medical
association. Think AMA in the USA and GMC in the UK. I don't know their
names elsewhere.

May I ask what jurisdiction you're speaking of.

North America, UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand for certain.
Probably a lot of others too.

However, in almost every jurisdiction that I know of where it would
matter, software engineers, actually anyone who calls themselves an
engineer, like doctors, lawyers and hairdressers are required to have a
license.

As Tom said, depends on local rules. If you're a member of a professional
association or (in the UK) Chartered then the association operates much
like the AMA or the GMC. In addition, national laws cover whether you can
practice without being a member of a professional association: medical
doctors, lawyers, architects and accountants can't. I'm uncertain how
that applies to engineers, but it doesn't apply to software engineers.

 

[Keith H Duggar]

So you're in a minority of one. All of the standard definitions
consider it science.

Obviously, if you redefine science, and redefine principles, you
can come up with definitions such that software engineering does
not use "scientific principles". But that's just playing word
games, and doesn't help either understanding nor communication.

Semantic whining is often employed by those seeking to
reinforce their own prejudices as opposed to those seeking
to learn and communicate.

What physical phenomena are involved in such sciences as
economic science, or psychology, or sociology.

economics :
The various phenomena related to the acquisition, production,
distribution, and consumption of materials and services such
as scarcity, abundance, economy of scale, supply and demand,
learning curve, Laffer curve, market structures, inflation,
deflation, risk-reward, value theory, competition, etc.

psychology :
The various phenomena related to mental processes and behavior
such as memory, learning, perception, attention, sensitization,
de-sensitization, adaptation, dreams, emotion, empathy, gender
differences, attitude, personality, etc.

sociology :
The various phenomena related to human group behavior such as
crowd behavior, mob mentality, herding, racism, segregation,
social identity, culture, memes, globalization, deviance,
family, justice, class warfare, etc.

mathematics :
The various phenomena related to quantity, structure, pattern,
relations, space, and change such as measures of extent (area,
distance, volume), scaling relations, congruence, topology for
example the description and enumeration of knots and networks,
rates of change, colorability, conversation of number, etc.

The Four Color Theorem is an enjoyable and clear example of
mathematics describing a physical phenomenon.

KHD

 

[LR]

You seemed to be saying that wind load calculations were purely an
optional extra to be undertaken if there was any cash left in the design
kitty.

I don't think that it's optional in the sense that it's good thing not
to consider wind load.


But it does depend on what work the customer contracts an engineer to
perform. Not every engineer working on a bridge might consider wind
load. But I'd agree that someone should. I suspect it doesn't always
happen though.

There are also issues of what might be expected to occur. EG, AFAIK,
there was work done on the WTC to determine the outcome of a jetliner
impacting the building, but no work was done to determine what the fuel
that jet might be carrying would do to the structural integrity of the
building.

I think a reasonable lesson from this might be that failure modes can be
important.

I disagree. Including an engineering project's operating environment in
the design calculations is mandatory: the engineer is culpable if a known
hazard or constraint is overlooked. This applies equally to software and
bridges.

I did mention good practice. Would you agree that this only implies
within the limit of known art?

LR

 

[Martin Gregorie]

I did mention good practice. Would you agree that this only implies
within the limit of known art?

That's why I said *known* hazard.

You can't design for an unknown hazard but you should sure as hell have
your arse kicked for ignoring a relevant one.

BTW, Cheney should not have been rubbished for his "unknown unknowns":
just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it isn't there,
so a prudent course of action should make some allowance for that
possibility.

 

[LR]

So you're in a minority of one.

I think that might depend on what minority you're speaking of, if you
accept what Kai-Uwe Bux said about there being some tension about where
to put math, that implies that there is at least one other person
besides me who feels that way.

All of the standard definitions consider it science.

Not the one's that I've read. Not the one's my teachers taught me.

Obviously, if you redefine science, and redefine principles, you
can come up with definitions such that software engineering does
not use "scientific principles". But that's just playing word
games, and doesn't help either understanding nor communication.

These are the things that I was taught and learned. But perhaps the
opposite is true? That people are changing the definitions of things to
suit what they perceive as being their self-interest? Do you think
that's possible?

What physical phenomena are involved in such sciences as
economic science, or psychology, or sociology.

Assuming that it is in fact a science, I think that in economics at
least there is the question of the allocation of scarce resources
(that's from memory, so I might have it wrong, I think that's what
Sowell said,) and these are physical entities. There's also the
question of the movement of goods and currency. Perhaps we could
restate those as fluids problems? In an article at a link I posted else
thread, George Soros used the phrase "financial engineering."

It's less clear to me, perhaps because I don't know enough about them
that psychology and sociology are sciences. But I suppose if they are
able to measure physical phenomena and make predictions about them, the
way physics can then they'd be sciences. Can they do these?

But I think that we do have to be careful about defining what a science
is. For example, political pollsters measure things and often use them
to make predictions. But I'm not sure how far I'd go in saying that
Political Science is a science. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Or if it's
not now, maybe one day it will be.

Also, AFAICR all of the sciences have some relation to an engineering
discipline, or at least off hand I can't think of one that doesn't.
What engineering disciplines are the three things you named related to?

LR

 

[LR]

Aren't programs built up from pre-defined and well-understood
motules with limited options and provable behavior. I mean, I
don't reinvent std::vector each time I need it.

Evidently, there's an opinion that the arts can be more or less the same.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19900309/REVIEWS/3090304/1023

"Most movies are constructed out of bits and pieces of other movies,
like little engines built from cinematic Erector sets."

You don't use C++ code, either; C++ doesn't run on my machine.
C++ is just the blueprint for the machine code (which in turn is
really just a blueprint for the way some electrons are going to
move).

Is there any reason in principle why C++ code can't run on a machine?

LR

 

[LR]

As I've just explained above, what I didn't like was that I read into
your statement the idea that consideration of known hazards/constraints
might be optional when designing something. IMO that's never optional
regardless of what is being designed.

Then please allow me to ask what an engineer should do if a client wants
an analysis done on the resonant frequency of a bridge, but not any work
done on wind loading, or, well, I'm not sure what the technical terms
would be, let's call it static deck loading, or transient deck loading.
Or another fluids problem bridges encounter, water on their supports.
Can an engineer take that work?

LR

 

[LR]

Yes. If they are sufficiently bad they are struck off, i.e. kicked out of
the association, and can no longer practice medicine. Is is a criminal
offense to practice medicine of you're not a member of the medical
association. Think AMA in the USA and GMC in the UK. I don't know their
names elsewhere.

Are you sure about this in the US? From what I know, almost every
physician in the US is an AMA member, but I was unaware that it was a
requirement to be a member.

I snipped perhaps a little too much about what you wrote about national
laws requiring membership I'm not sure you meant to apply that to US.
I'm not all that familiar with how the AMA is organized, but I seem to
recall a few stories in the US about doctors who lose their license in
one state but not another and continue to practice in the state in which
they maintain a license. But I hasten to say that I don't have a link to
anything that will back me up on this.

LR

 

[Lew]

economics :
The various phenomena related to the acquisition, production,
distribution, and consumption of materials and services such
as scarcity, abundance, economy of scale, supply and demand,
learning curve, Laffer curve, market structures, inflation,
deflation, risk-reward, value theory, competition, etc.

All of which are social phenomena. Economics is a behavioral science, not a
physical one.

There is nothing physically inherent in ferrous ore that makes it an economic
resource. It's the valuation by humans that makes it an economic phenomenon.

Yes, economics does involve physical phenomena, but their significance in
economics is social.

psychology :
The various phenomena related to mental processes and behavior
such as memory, learning, perception, attention, sensitization,
de-sensitization, adaptation, dreams, emotion, empathy, gender
differences, attitude, personality, etc.

It is not the physical attributes of those that make up psychology. The
physical phenomena make up the sciences of neurology and physiology.

sociology :
The various phenomena related to human group behavior such as
crowd behavior, mob mentality, herding, racism, segregation,
social identity, culture, memes, globalization, deviance,
family, justice, class warfare, etc.

Again, not physical phenomena, as viewed through the filter of social science.

mathematics :
The various phenomena related to quantity, structure, pattern,
relations, space, and change such as measures of extent (area,
distance, volume), scaling relations, congruence, topology for
example the description and enumeration of knots and networks,
rates of change, colorability, conversation of number, etc.

Not physical.

The Four Color Theorem is an enjoyable and clear example of
mathematics describing a physical phenomenon.

When applied to physicial phenomena, but the theorem is studied apart from its
physical applicability.

This supports the point made by James and others that science is not solely
concerned with physical phenomena. I think he should have picked a better
term than "involved in", perhaps "focused on".