The Third Bit: Four Traditions Revisited

Software engineers have long been taught to sort their work into three academic traditions: mathematical, engineering, and scientific. The article reproduces the classic table from Tedre and Sutinen, showing how each tradition frames assumptions, aims, strengths, and weaknesses. It points out that the engineering and scientific columns overlap heavily, and both miss the human side of why we build software.

The author proposes adding a fourth "Humanist" tradition that focuses on values, how computing is used, and the cognitive and social psychology that shape design and maintenance. By reframing assumptions as "programs are built by people who learn from examples" and aims as answering whether a system does what it's supposed to and supports easy construction, the piece highlights a gap: practitioners think in terms of craft and industrial design, not formal engineering models.

For technical leaders this analysis is a call to re-balance team conversations. Emphasizing mentorship, design thinking, and the social context of code can bridge the divide between researchers and day-to-day developers. Recognizing the humanist lens helps teams ask the right questions about maintainability, value, and impact, leading to more resilient systems and healthier engineering cultures.