Tell me what you like and I’ll tell you what you are.
These are some of the topics we love as an IT-based engineering company. And some which we do not like. They are mainly technology topics, but please do read what we mean by Technology. They are (or at least we hope they are) in line with our principles.
These are the technologies that we love. We believe that if everyone out there used them more often, the IT world would be far more better than it is now. Kind of romantic, but that is what we think.
We believe that Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics are the cornerstone of the current state in our civilization, as Art or Religion were in the past. Check out our careers page to see what kind of profile we want in our people.
We love science, particularly physics. We love the way science thinks and they way science evolves. All the way back to Galileo and his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. We love his scientific method and how it can be applied to almost every issue in our lives (except love, of course). We love asking why over and over. And getting a response!
We love technology, i.e. a transformation of a scientific principle into an applied breakthrough. We love how the Maxwell equations turned into electrical motors. We even love how the Watt steam engine pulled Carnot’s theorem, first passing through technology and then to science. We love how people managed to build ENIAC. And we love even more how they managed to program her. Please note that we do not think that every piece of software, understood as of 2016, is technology. We do not think that Facebook is technology. We do not think every mobile phone app is technology. Some of them are, most of them are not.
We love how engineering manages to solve problems. Some people refer to Engineering as “applying science to solve problems.” Yet the term “Engineering” is derived from the Latin ingenium, meaning “cleverness” and ingeniare, meaning “to contrive, devise.” Indeed, most of the time, engineers apply science. But there are some times where they (we) apply common sense, expert judgment, educated guesses and even some luck. The key here is that engineering solves problems in a cost-effective way. The many-billion-worth perfect solution doest not work (OK, maybe sometimes it is the only solution). We need project management skills in order to build a nuclear reactor or to send people to the Moon.
We love math, and we consider it the mother of all the sciences.
These are the technologies that we like. They are a nice-to-have, although they are not crucial.
These are the technologies that we do not care about. They can come and go, I we would not notice any difference.
These are the technologies that we definitively do not like. They are harmful. We would for sure live in a better world if they had not been invented at all in the first place.
Not that we do not like the term “simulation” per sé, but we do not like to say that solving a deterministic mathematical model of a physical system is like “simulating” such system. We rather prefer to say we are “modeling” it, leaving the term “simulation” to solving probabilistic systems with a Monte Carlo-based method. For instance, computing Blackjack expected values using Eric Farmer’s combinatorial code would be modeling whilst using our LibreBlackjack would be simulation. But in no case, from our point of view, would solving the displacement-based formulation of the elasticity problem with CAEplex or directly with Fino be akin to “simulating” a mechanical system.
The original design basis of avoiding architecture-dependent binaries was, at that time, at least interesting. Time has shown that there is no point in pursuing such a goal. The world should now shift to more sane languages.
“If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution”. – Robert Sewell
Luckily this technology has phased out and sanity has been restored. Years of darkness should be over by now, although there are some people that still did not get the news.