by Dmitry A. Kazakov

Let me put it so: engineering is a process of applying a science.

So the nature and quality of engineering is determined by the science it applies. For instance, physics is a truthful science and the great variety of engineering related to the most fields of physics are solid. Yet there are rare exceptions, like astrophysics ("astroengineering", ugh?) If we consider medicine, the picture will be less brilliant. And as for literature, well, you definitely know a saying that writers are engineers of human souls, but it is rather a tasteless joke. 

Now the question is what determines the quality of a science. Obviously the subject of science does it. Obscure subjects are bad, like one of meteorology or mentioned above astrophysics. However there is another dimension. It is that weary matter/sense issue. Any bad science dealing with mostly matter has a chance to mature and give birth to a decent engineering. In contrary to this a "science" concentrating on sense has very little chance to do it. (What social engineering would be? Do you even want such a thing?)

If we turn back to the subject of software engineering, we will find out, that it was born from fine and noble parents (applied mathematics et al). In its tender years it was very promised. Unfortunately as it often happens, software engineering kept company with ill-looking persons. (Put here your present occupation) It sunk down. Parents turned it out of the house. At the moment it represents a grim picture causing a mixed feeling of compassion and disgust. Like a drug-addict it is in a constant search for a new stuff. It disdains nothing (it tasted even artificial intelligence!). And we ask ourselves, what will be of it?

So is the software engineering and we still like it.