5 ms·

Here's the question, though. By professionalization, does that mean that only members who have a CS degree can get a job? Does that mean that we have to carry i

Here's the question, though. By professionalization, does that mean that only members who have a CS degree can get a job? Does that mean that we have to carry insurance? What does that mean for access to compilers -- is it illegal for anyone but a certified professional to put up a website? How big does it have to be before it has to have certified developers?

emp_zealoth 10y ago
For starters we could do without total lack of responsibility. Real engineers can be sued and loose if they signed off on something In software? Almost every EULA comes with "We assume no responsbility for anything, anywhere, ever"
jknoepfler 10y ago
All good questions. What I have in mind in the short term is much more in line with the ACM doc linked below by nullc. The idea of a professional degree has crossed my mind. There's enough of a gap in knowledge and ability required to transition from writing static web content to writing high quality (maintainable, operationally sound, scaleable) enterprise backend code that it starts to look like a paralegal/lawyer, LPN vs. RN, etc. distinction. The difference is that the public has little interest in regulating engineers, but it does have an interest in regulating lawyers and nurses. I'm personally deeply suspicious of degrees. I'm returning to school to get a professional masters in CSCI, but the program explicitly requires work experience as a pre-requisite for entry (which seems like a no-brainer to me). It also has a high price, which is not something I would foist on the community. I don't think "programming" should ever be tied to professional institutions as such (much less academic computer science). It has strong roots in free, open-source, decentralized, hacker-minded culture, and I don't think we should ever give that up. So I guess I'm of two minds about the idea of a professional engineering degree. On the one hand it would help raise expectations about professionalism and accountability in software, which seem pitifully low right now, and on the other hand, it seems like a path no one in their right mind would want to go down.
analog31 10y ago
I suspect that if we wanted to require a formal degree pursuant to licensure for software development (not to mention installation and operation of computers and software), that degree doesn't exist today. The closest thing might be electrical engineering. We don't even know what computers or software would look like under such a scenario.
ars 10y ago
Here's how I would do it: No degree, but rather a programmer publicly signs off on his code, and gets both credit and blame for it. Anyone who wants can register for a programmer ID (in practice a public key). There is no test, just an administration fee. When you write code you sign off on it, perhaps with some accompanying text describing what parts you worked on. No more anonymous code shipped by a company entity, instead do it like how movies are done: Every single person gets credit (including QA and administration), every tool used gets credit.
- fao_ 10y ago
  Either the key can be replicated easily without signing, or there is the probability of an overlap between different keys. Either way there is the probability for forgery.
- CM30 10y ago
  Interesting idea, but... Seems like a great way for company bosses to say "nah, we didn't know about this, the rogue programmer there made the decision". Unless you have some way to also blame the management responsible for deciding such a design should be implemented.
  - ars 10y ago
    > Unless you have some way to also blame the management responsible for deciding such a design should be implemented. Their name is on it as well, with text describing what they approved.
    - CM30 10y ago
      Well, that makes it a lot better then. Nice to know this issue was considered in some form.
      - mattwinslow 10y ago
        This happens to various degrees in the clinical research industry, depending upon the nature of the work (partly thanks to 21 CFR Part 11!). Several years ago I worked in data management on a maintenance team for clinical trial databases. Company-wide, there was a rigid system in place that captured electronic signatures as change requests were documented, code was modified, and tests were completed. Anything that was done flowed through at least those three distinct groups (data team lead, maintenance programmer, & QA). We could easily tell how a study's database had been modified in the past (including who had requested the change, who programmed the change, and who tested the change)...there was always an expectation that every i was dotted, t was crossed (or semicolon was in place) before anyone signed off on their work since it would permanently enter the record and couldn't be erased.
geebee 10y ago
I'm pretty scared about how this would happen. My ideal would be something like the actuarial exams. You start with exams on math, calculus, linear algebra, DEs, probability theory, numerical analysis, and so forth. Eventually it moves on to more industry specific exams. There are quite a few, different levels to pass. It is highly rigorous, but one very key feature of all this is that you don't have a specifically proscribed academic path. There isn't a situation like law school, where aspiring professions are essentially forced to spend $120k+ on tuition to join the profession. You can major in math, I think that's most common, and graduate degrees are not unusual either, but you can major in a related field or, as far as I understand, just study math really hard on your own. You are free to decide how to prepare. Looking at these tests, I can't possibly imagine that anyone who can pass hasn't learned very rigorous coursework. Something like this could work for programming. We could set up a series of exams, similar to the actuarial math exams, but covering the essential CS work (another bonus: we could do this once, and it would be graded consistency and fairly, rather than being subjected to repeated "interviews" where we are randomly quizzed on data structures every time we apply for a new job). As it moves on, it might get to more industry specific things. CS would be an advantage, sure, but a math major who has taken some CS and plugs the gaps through self-study would be perfectly free to join the profession. This is essential, in my opinion, it's very important not to allow a cartel like the law schools to take over. That would be extremely harmful. I'm sure I haven't thought it all through, but this seems to be the most promising approach. Oh, and lastly, it's not engineering! The licensing bodies for professional engineers are honorable organizations that have no domain over software, no more than they do over actuarial work. Software is its own thing, it isn't engineering.
- koga-ninja 10y ago
  It's good for programmers to be competent. But what About those who are competent but still cut corners. I'm all for training unless it becomes a requirement Which you absolutely need to get a job.

emp_zealoth 10y ago

For starters we could do without total lack of responsibility. Real engineers can be sued and loose if they signed off on something In software? Almost every EULA comes with "We assume no responsbility for anything, anywhere, ever"

jknoepfler 10y ago

All good questions. What I have in mind in the short term is much more in line with the ACM doc linked below by nullc. The idea of a professional degree has crossed my mind. There's enough of a gap in knowledge and ability required to transition from writing static web content to writing high quality (maintainable, operationally sound, scaleable) enterprise backend code that it starts to look like a paralegal/lawyer, LPN vs. RN, etc. distinction. The difference is that the public has little interest in regulating engineers, but it does have an interest in regulating lawyers and nurses. I'm personally deeply suspicious of degrees. I'm returning to school to get a professional masters in CSCI, but the program explicitly requires work experience as a pre-requisite for entry (which seems like a no-brainer to me). It also has a high price, which is not something I would foist on the community. I don't think "programming" should ever be tied to professional institutions as such (much less academic computer science). It has strong roots in free, open-source, decentralized, hacker-minded culture, and I don't think we should ever give that up. So I guess I'm of two minds about the idea of a professional engineering degree. On the one hand it would help raise expectations about professionalism and accountability in software, which seem pitifully low right now, and on the other hand, it seems like a path no one in their right mind would want to go down.

analog31 10y ago

I suspect that if we wanted to require a formal degree pursuant to licensure for software development (not to mention installation and operation of computers and software), that degree doesn't exist today. The closest thing might be electrical engineering. We don't even know what computers or software would look like under such a scenario.

ars 10y ago

Here's how I would do it: No degree, but rather a programmer publicly signs off on his code, and gets both credit and blame for it. Anyone who wants can register for a programmer ID (in practice a public key). There is no test, just an administration fee. When you write code you sign off on it, perhaps with some accompanying text describing what parts you worked on. No more anonymous code shipped by a company entity, instead do it like how movies are done: Every single person gets credit (including QA and administration), every tool used gets credit.

fao_ 10y ago
Either the key can be replicated easily without signing, or there is the probability of an overlap between different keys. Either way there is the probability for forgery.
CM30 10y ago
Interesting idea, but... Seems like a great way for company bosses to say "nah, we didn't know about this, the rogue programmer there made the decision". Unless you have some way to also blame the management responsible for deciding such a design should be implemented.
- ars 10y ago
  > Unless you have some way to also blame the management responsible for deciding such a design should be implemented. Their name is on it as well, with text describing what they approved.
  - CM30 10y ago
    Well, that makes it a lot better then. Nice to know this issue was considered in some form.
    - mattwinslow 10y ago
      This happens to various degrees in the clinical research industry, depending upon the nature of the work (partly thanks to 21 CFR Part 11!). Several years ago I worked in data management on a maintenance team for clinical trial databases. Company-wide, there was a rigid system in place that captured electronic signatures as change requests were documented, code was modified, and tests were completed. Anything that was done flowed through at least those three distinct groups (data team lead, maintenance programmer, & QA). We could easily tell how a study's database had been modified in the past (including who had requested the change, who programmed the change, and who tested the change)...there was always an expectation that every i was dotted, t was crossed (or semicolon was in place) before anyone signed off on their work since it would permanently enter the record and couldn't be erased.

geebee 10y ago

I'm pretty scared about how this would happen. My ideal would be something like the actuarial exams. You start with exams on math, calculus, linear algebra, DEs, probability theory, numerical analysis, and so forth. Eventually it moves on to more industry specific exams. There are quite a few, different levels to pass. It is highly rigorous, but one very key feature of all this is that you don't have a specifically proscribed academic path. There isn't a situation like law school, where aspiring professions are essentially forced to spend $120k+ on tuition to join the profession. You can major in math, I think that's most common, and graduate degrees are not unusual either, but you can major in a related field or, as far as I understand, just study math really hard on your own. You are free to decide how to prepare. Looking at these tests, I can't possibly imagine that anyone who can pass hasn't learned very rigorous coursework. Something like this could work for programming. We could set up a series of exams, similar to the actuarial math exams, but covering the essential CS work (another bonus: we could do this once, and it would be graded consistency and fairly, rather than being subjected to repeated "interviews" where we are randomly quizzed on data structures every time we apply for a new job). As it moves on, it might get to more industry specific things. CS would be an advantage, sure, but a math major who has taken some CS and plugs the gaps through self-study would be perfectly free to join the profession. This is essential, in my opinion, it's very important not to allow a cartel like the law schools to take over. That would be extremely harmful. I'm sure I haven't thought it all through, but this seems to be the most promising approach. Oh, and lastly, it's not engineering! The licensing bodies for professional engineers are honorable organizations that have no domain over software, no more than they do over actuarial work. Software is its own thing, it isn't engineering.

koga-ninja 10y ago
It's good for programmers to be competent. But what About those who are competent but still cut corners. I'm all for training unless it becomes a requirement Which you absolutely need to get a job.