Tony Duell wrote:
But that
isn't what Tony said; he said:
Yes, back when engineers actually thought about
things and didn't
attempt to 'solve' problems by throwing computing power at them.
-tony
That says that engineers today don't solve probems anymore; he didn't
say that he detests engineers who are bad.
If you're goign to be pedantic about it...
I did not say that engineers could not think, or were incapable of
thinking, or anything like that. I said, basically, that engineers no
longer thought about problems, they threw computer power at them.
I summarized your position as "engineers don't solve problems anymore";
you called me pedantic, misstated what I said apparently so you could
disagree with it, and then you said: "engineers no longer thought about
problems."
Saying that "engineers no longer thought about problems" is untrue and
insulting to those of us engineering. Engineers are solving problems
daily, but they are different problems than you think are worthwhile.
Tony, you appear to have the approach of a craftsman. You have the
luxury of time to follow your interests. Most paid engineers, except a
lucky few, don't get to follow their whim, have demanding price,
performance, power, and packaging goals, and are under severe time
constraints. By and large, those problems are not solved by throwing
computing power at them.
Others have said that the modern way _is_ to use a CAD
system and let it
sort out the mess. Which rather confirms my point.
No, rather it shows that you like to set up a straw man that you can
knock down. CAD systems don't sort out messes, and I doubt someone
other than a vendor would claim that. If CAD systems could sort out
messes, they would command a much higher price and rightfully would be
used instead of engineers. If my job can be automated, it should, and
I'd better have more tricks up my sleeve to draw a salary.
[And no, I am not happy about this, and I'll bet
most good engineers
aren't eitehr. But apparently it's better to save $0.01 on each product
than to make a good quality device that you could sell for $10 more.
Markets are often/usually segmented. If there is not a market for the
more expensive, higher quality part, then it will die. It is
regrettable only for the few who desire such a product but aren't
willing to pay the cost to make it a profitable market segment.
This phenomenon has nothing whatsoever to do with engineers or CAD
systems. It is as true of toothpicks as it is of floppy disks and
personal computers. Why are we discussing it?
And noote I've not said that CAD systems are
useless. I believe they're
very useful tools, but like all tools there are times when they are
appropriate and times when they are not. I also believe they have to be
used with care and understnading. I do not accept the advertising lies
that a CAD system will turn anyone into a good engineer. It won't.
Period. ]
We agree then, except the part where you said "engineers no longer
thought about problems, they threw computer power at them."
Which is where we started.
Trying to making this a little more on topic of classic computers and
not just a pissing match, many of us own machines that cost $20,000
(say) when new that we picked up for next to nothing 30 years down the
road. To compare the construction and design of a $20,000 computer to
todays $300 wonder is not really fair to either machine. On raw
capacity and speed, today's machine will chew up the old machine; on
quality of parts, design and construction, of course the $20,000 machine
is going to win on that basis.