Talk:Engineering/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Explaining more clearly what Engineering is

I think the lead section is not very effective in introducing the topic. The first sentences summarizes it well but it jumps immediately to engineering disciplines. I think more space is needed to explain what engineering is. It may be beneficial to add three more sentences right after the first one to explain what kind of problems engineering solves, provide some examples of the outcome of engineering, and elaborate on the constraints aspect. This is what I am thinking of adding:

These problems typically involve satisfying human needs and have resulted in engineering creations such as bridges, engines, smartphones, the internet, spacecraft, and washing machines. Every design engineers create respects and adapts to constraints. These range from soft limits such as budget and time to hard boundaries such as the laws of physics.

Or simply:

Examples of the creations of engineering are bridges, engines, smartphones, the internet, spacecraft, and washing machines.

I think that the list of examples is probably worth adding since it not only helps explain the topic but also indirectly shows why it is notable, which is important and not done elsewhere in the lead section.

For reference, this is how the new lead paragraph would look like:

Engineering is the practice of systematically applying natural science and mathematics to design and improve systems, devices, or processes that solve problems under constraints. Examples of the creations of engineering are bridges, engines, smartphones, the internet, spacecraft, and washing machines. The traditional disciplines of engineering are civil, mechanical, electrical, and chemical. The academic discipline of engineering encompasses a broad range of more specialized subfields, and each can have a more specific emphasis for applications of mathematics and science. Modern engineering practice follows the engineering design process and spans multiple fields, which include designing and improving infrastructure, machinery, vehicles, electronics, materials, and energy systems. For related terms, see glossary of engineering.

Thoughts? Cicada419 (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I will make the edit given that a week has gone by without comments. If the extra sentences aren't well received we can debate them. Here is the polished version I will apply (first sentence is not new):

Engineering is the practice of systematically applying natural science and mathematics to design and improve systems, devices, or processes that solve problems under constraints. It is typically motivated by satisfying human needs, resulting in creations such as bridges, engines, smartphones, pacemakers, the internet, spacecraft, and washing machines. Engineering involves balancing requirements such as aesthetic preferences with soft constraints such as budget and time, while strictly respecting hard boundaries such as safety, legal regulations, and the laws of physics.

These extra sentences make the opening paragraph more accessible and accurate. Also, they show indirectly why the topic is notable. Cicada419 (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

OK but "while strictly respecting hard boundaries such as safety, legal regulations, " is incorrect. An atomic bomb can be engineered by someone like me, it is neither safe nor legal. It is still engineering. Greglocock (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

True but an atomic bomb / military equipment is a special case. Also, you can only design it without respecting legal regulations but you will have to follow them if you actually want to apply your design. I think the term is accurate in most cases but we can certainly remove it if it is factually wrong. What do you think? Cicada419 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@Greglocock I think replacing 'hard boundaries' with 'hard constraints' and removing the term 'strictly' would be more accurate and may effectively address the concerns. I've drafted a new version of the last sentence:

Engineering involves balancing soft constraints such as budget and time with design requirements such as aesthetic preferences, while respecting hard constraints such as safety, legal regulations, and the laws of physics.

Thoughts? Cicada419 (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm hoping someone else joins in. I think my example demonstrates that legal and safety are soft constraints in our non-ideal world. A vast number of engineers are involved in engineering things that are specifically intended to hurt or kill people and can be used to commit crimes. Greglocock (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I have to push back on safety not being a hard constraint, because it is in 99% of cases. Even if we look at military equipment, safety is absolutely a hard constraint during the engineering process. The safety of that who has to store, maintain, and operate the equipment, in particular. I've done some research and an atomic bomb is a masterclass in engineering safety, it is designed so it won't cause a catastrophe if poorly maintained, lost, or even burned. The 1% of cases I could find where safety is not a hard constraint is when the product and its context is so simple that there is no possibility for it to compromise safety.

Regarding legal regulations, they are a hard constraint in 90-99% of cases. Arguably enough to make it valid example of a hard constraint. We can certainly remove it if 90% accuracy is not enough.

Regardless, I've drafted a different version that drops the terms "soft constraints" and "hard constraints" altogether. Here it is:

Engineering involves balancing competing demands such as cost, time, performance, and aesthetics while respecting limits such as safety, legal regulations, and the laws of physics.

Thoughts? Cicada419 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I've drafted a version which I think is much better:

Engineering involves balancing competing demands such as safety, performance, aesthetics, cost, and time, while operating within fundamental limits such as the laws of physics.

It uses the term 'competing demands' and moves 'safety' there, which is accurate, even if safety is often weighted more than the others.

I will apply the changes given that the talk page is inactive and the sentence addresses the concerns expressed. If anyone has any comments or alternatives we can discuss them. Cicada419 (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)