I find that by logging workouts and measuring progress, I am much more likely to improve and know by how much I improved. Logging workouts can also save time. By logging my workouts, I know exactly what my target goals are for my next workout, so I can get in and get it over with instead of wasting time doing what "feels right" at the time. This works great for me, but YMMV.
"But we don't have this in software designs for the most part. We have the requirements, such as what the input and output looks like and the run-time constraints which dictate the maximum time a given operation is allowed to take. But there is much in-between these that is elusive to objective metrics. "
I pretty much stopped reading here. Elusive to objective metrics? I agree that you can't measure a program like you would a bridge, using physical laws such as physics and chemistry, but you very well can measure many aspects of it such as: efficiency, size, required resources, relative ease of use, etc. Just because it is not a physical thing doesn't mean we can't use a "scientific method" approach, we just need to be open to using metrics that exist in the digital realm.
The world does have, rightly or wrongly, "process engineers" who use metrics to modify and optimize processes, physical or business. Just look at how widely the attempts to employ Six Sigma have been.
That said, being able to measure something isn't sufficient; one also needs the control to modify the thing being measured in a way that has deterministic effects on the metrics. GP's metrics have that feedback loop with respect to software, which pushes it towards engineering. Process engineers have that feedback loop, even on business processes. Your manager does not; most of their actions do not create deterministic results.
The reason people say silly things like this is that "software design" is used for slightly the wrong thing. What is called a "design" in software is much closer to a relatively low level specification in physical manufacturing, while a completed mechanical design can just be handed to a factory for production, and is much closer to source code for software.
We'll be thinking how cool it would be to see pictures from the year 2000 if only they weren't locked away by DRM formats that are now unreadable in the year 2050. ;)
Not that I'm arguing against your point, but you've made me curious. Is there actual DRM on photos? I know videos, music, games, books... but I haven't heard of a DRM'd picture before. Any insight?
Personally, I would predict incompatible formats with no decryption program available. Will Photoshop and .psd still be around in 50 years?
Aside from a few odd cases like AutoCAD and Photoshop, I don't think most pictures are encumbered by DRM as of right now. I'm sure there are several companies that would love to change that, however. My comment was mostly a joke, but I could see a world in the not-so-distant-future where it wouldn't be very funny.
To my point (and I guess the point of the DRM issue), that would depend on if you could actually get a copy of Photoshop working. Would Adobe still be running their activation servers? Would any of the cracks still be around? I'm willing to admit I don't know if there are FOSS (or equivalent) .psd software. Maybe GIMP will still be around, if it can open .psd?
I see little evidence people have learned from it. (And the main lesson seems to be: if you give the national archive office a disc, they will lose it. If you painstakingly reconstruct the disc and give them a fresh copy, they will lose that too)
I find that by logging workouts and measuring progress, I am much more likely to improve and know by how much I improved. Logging workouts can also save time. By logging my workouts, I know exactly what my target goals are for my next workout, so I can get in and get it over with instead of wasting time doing what "feels right" at the time. This works great for me, but YMMV.