3 ms·

I'm unconvinced that software development should have the same level of licensing as e.g. engineering. Software isn't the same as traditional mechanical/structu

I'm unconvinced that software development should have the same level of licensing as e.g. engineering. Software isn't the same as traditional mechanical/structural/electrical etc engineering - it's a faster-moving area, and most of the time software is not safety-critical and has only limited societal impact in case of failure. It's also a lot easier for newcomers to get started in, and I don't want that to change. But I definitely think there's some role for professional bodies, with ethical codes, certifications, PD and all that, which programmers have traditionally resisted. Unfortunately, the existing professional bodies are not that. The Australian Computer Society, to give one example, is more representative of corporate IT executives than of programmers, and I don't know anyone who is a member apart from those whose employers pay for it.

logicchains 8y ago
I have some friends who studied the Masters of Software Engineering at the University of Melbourne (an Australian university), a course accredited by EUR-Inf (http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-label.php http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-label.php) and the Washington Accord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Accord), which allows graduates to more legitimately refer to themselves as "engineers" in some countries. A huge portion of the course was dedicated to essentially just teaching waterfall: giant UML diagrams (with mandatory 90s style OO) and 50-100 page reports. Given how disconnected this is from what's considered modern software development best practices, I think in practice the spread of licensing would only hold the field back (unless it's somehow completely disconnected from the bodies responsible for traditional engineering licensing).
- ajdlinux 8y ago
  Yep, this is exactly my problem - I want higher standards across the industry, but I want it to be about substance, not merely additional process and bureaucracy, and I want training to not be so disconnected from real world practice.
  - arvinsim 8y ago
    Same sentiment here. But technology moves too fast for any licensing body to keep up.
- iscrewyou 8y ago
  A license isn't only about technical knowledge. It also tests you on ethical issues, historical issues, complaints, and record lookups.
  - logicchains 8y ago
    How much would such a licensing system have to increase software engineers' ethics to compensate for decreasing software engineers' software development competence?
- lazulicurio 8y ago
  As a somewhat contrary opinion, personally I think that waterfall and UML are unfairly maligned most of the time. Waterfall can be an entirely valid management approach. If you're working on a system that is too complex or ill-defined to be documented, maybe find someone who is better at systems design than you[1] or re-think the system boundaries and try to narrow its scope. Agile & co are just as difficult to pull off correctly if you have poor systems culture in your organization. [1] The impersonal you; I don't mean this as an attack

logicchains 8y ago

I have some friends who studied the Masters of Software Engineering at the University of Melbourne (an Australian university), a course accredited by EUR-Inf (http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-label.php http://www.eqanie.eu/pages/quality-label.php) and the Washington Accord (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Accord https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Accord), which allows graduates to more legitimately refer to themselves as "engineers" in some countries. A huge portion of the course was dedicated to essentially just teaching waterfall: giant UML diagrams (with mandatory 90s style OO) and 50-100 page reports. Given how disconnected this is from what's considered modern software development best practices, I think in practice the spread of licensing would only hold the field back (unless it's somehow completely disconnected from the bodies responsible for traditional engineering licensing).

ajdlinux 8y ago
Yep, this is exactly my problem - I want higher standards across the industry, but I want it to be about substance, not merely additional process and bureaucracy, and I want training to not be so disconnected from real world practice.
- arvinsim 8y ago
  Same sentiment here. But technology moves too fast for any licensing body to keep up.
iscrewyou 8y ago
A license isn't only about technical knowledge. It also tests you on ethical issues, historical issues, complaints, and record lookups.
- logicchains 8y ago
  How much would such a licensing system have to increase software engineers' ethics to compensate for decreasing software engineers' software development competence?
lazulicurio 8y ago
As a somewhat contrary opinion, personally I think that waterfall and UML are unfairly maligned most of the time. Waterfall can be an entirely valid management approach. If you're working on a system that is too complex or ill-defined to be documented, maybe find someone who is better at systems design than you[1] or re-think the system boundaries and try to narrow its scope. Agile & co are just as difficult to pull off correctly if you have poor systems culture in your organization. [1] The impersonal you; I don't mean this as an attack