3 ms·

I don't think anyone is arguing that all computer programmers need to be accredited. The argument being put forward is that if you are deploying software in cer

I don't think anyone is arguing that all computer programmers need to be accredited. The argument being put forward is that if you are deploying software in certain specific fields then your code should be signed off by a certified professional before it is allowed to be perform it's intended function (which in this case is handling financial transactions). I am an engineer. There are codified regulations that I am required to comply with by law. Hypothetically if I certify the design of a structure and later on I was found to be have been negligent in performing my duties as a practicing professional engineer then Me, the company I work for (or both of us) are up for huge liabilities. You can't build a $31M Bridge without the design being certified yet you can build software to handle $31M dollars of transactions just fine. None of this would stop open source contributions. If you want to contribute code to some financial processing software submit your pull request and have the (professionally certified) reviewer sign off on it after doing his job (i.e reviewing it). Edit: Here's a quote from William LeMessurier it's part of an ethics case study I learnt about at university (http://www.theaiatrust.com/whitepapers/ethics/study.php http://www.theaiatrust.com/whitepapers/ethics/study.php) "If you’ve got a license from the State and a certification from the University first and now you’re gonna [sic] use the license to hold yourself out as a professional, you have a responsibility beyond yourself, if you see something that is a social risk...good heavens this thing would kill thousands! You must do something. You must do something" Now a bug in this particular piece of code isn't going to kill someone but $31M is a lot of money to have stolen. No one in this topic is even thinking of the consequences. It could ruin multiple peoples lives losing that much money. A lot of people just seem to be content with this lawless "wild west" world of programming. Personally I think we should be striving for a higher level of professional and ethical standards.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
user5994461 9y ago
>>> The argument being put forward is that if you are deploying software in certain specific fields then your code should be signed off by a certified professional before it is allowed to be perform it's intended function (which in this case is handling financial transactions). This is already the case. Try working in aerospace.
michaelmrose 9y ago
There is a good likelihood that any substantial software effort by an accredited individual touches on a multitude of software written by less accredited people most of which he has never reviewed some of which nobody even knows who wrote it. The discretion you desire ought to be enforced by the people who are responsible for that 31 million dollars not a set of standards imposed from on high. If they fail and lose other peoples money or even lives the court is in the best position to correct this on a case by case basis. Any set of standards imposed from on high are likely to evolve slowly and work poorly as it is difficult to fully specify the problem without in each case fully using understanding the code, the problem space, and the risks. Ex a standard codified a few years ago would probably specify safe ways to write c but forbid rust. We can fully specify safe and proper ways to build bridges because we have been building bridges for thousands of years while software development is less understood and still in Flux. I don't think we could effectively turn software development into engineering even if this was desirable.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

user5994461 9y ago

>>> The argument being put forward is that if you are deploying software in certain specific fields then your code should be signed off by a certified professional before it is allowed to be perform it's intended function (which in this case is handling financial transactions). This is already the case. Try working in aerospace.

michaelmrose 9y ago

There is a good likelihood that any substantial software effort by an accredited individual touches on a multitude of software written by less accredited people most of which he has never reviewed some of which nobody even knows who wrote it. The discretion you desire ought to be enforced by the people who are responsible for that 31 million dollars not a set of standards imposed from on high. If they fail and lose other peoples money or even lives the court is in the best position to correct this on a case by case basis. Any set of standards imposed from on high are likely to evolve slowly and work poorly as it is difficult to fully specify the problem without in each case fully using understanding the code, the problem space, and the risks. Ex a standard codified a few years ago would probably specify safe ways to write c but forbid rust. We can fully specify safe and proper ways to build bridges because we have been building bridges for thousands of years while software development is less understood and still in Flux. I don't think we could effectively turn software development into engineering even if this was desirable.