Good writers will definitely tell you that practice makes perfect. That studying techniques and understanding the theory behind them will make you a better writer. Chop the wood, understand the different kinds of axes of different kinds of wood, perhaps even investigate how axes are made and what it takes to design one.
I think in science this is more invisible, because it is a natural part of the work. A scientist is naturally encouraged to scrutinize his knowledge and techniques to discover whether something can be improved, abstracted, done differently. However, I believe many would learn a lot from conscious attempts at that and especially in attempting to understand their process and way of working, instead of just their knowledge and tools.
As for engineering: there are often many procedures in place to make sure even an inexperienced engineer will produce solid work, often supervised and reviewed by more experienced ones. Practices that are also in place where good software engineering happens.
A lot of errors in the medical profession are attributable to the same mistakes as made in bad software engineering: a lone gunman mentality; a lack of communication and a lack of (following) procedures.
> I think there's an actual difference
I think so to. I think the reason is that in programming it is often quickly clear whether a product is deficient. When it is, it is usually clear what caused the deficiency. Often it is even attributable to (a) specific person(s). That has caused many programmers to be very conscious of how often they fail, which has caused them to be very introspective of how they work and how they can improve it.
I think in science this is more invisible, because it is a natural part of the work. A scientist is naturally encouraged to scrutinize his knowledge and techniques to discover whether something can be improved, abstracted, done differently. However, I believe many would learn a lot from conscious attempts at that and especially in attempting to understand their process and way of working, instead of just their knowledge and tools.
As for engineering: there are often many procedures in place to make sure even an inexperienced engineer will produce solid work, often supervised and reviewed by more experienced ones. Practices that are also in place where good software engineering happens.
A lot of errors in the medical profession are attributable to the same mistakes as made in bad software engineering: a lone gunman mentality; a lack of communication and a lack of (following) procedures.
> I think there's an actual difference
I think so to. I think the reason is that in programming it is often quickly clear whether a product is deficient. When it is, it is usually clear what caused the deficiency. Often it is even attributable to (a) specific person(s). That has caused many programmers to be very conscious of how often they fail, which has caused them to be very introspective of how they work and how they can improve it.