4 ms·

One huge issue with introducing licensing in software engineering is the fact that there are a great many very competent self taught software engineers. This br

by api 7y ago

One huge issue with introducing licensing in software engineering is the fact that there are a great many very competent self taught software engineers. This breaks the conventional model of how licensing works with its close coupling to university degree programs. The reason you see so many autodidacts is that its one of the few engineering fields where tinkering is both cheap and safe. Civil engineers basically can't tinker beyond maybe building models or using physically realistic simulations, and neither of those is a substitute for really building things at scale. Anyone with a decent computer can tinker endlessly with software with little or no consequence to anyone else when it breaks. The only other engineering field like this I can think of is electronics, where you also have a lot of autodidacts because components are cheap and unless you are messing with super high voltages it's pretty safe to play around. There is always a huge pushback against licensing in this field because it would be (accurately I think) seen as a way for universities to erect a mandatory toll booth. The second huge issue is that we don't have a good theory of good programming practice. There was an attempt to systematize things in the 90s "design patterns" era and all it got us was a ton of monstrous overengineering satirized by the many "hello world, enterprise edition" joke code bases on GitHub. More academic efforts around provable correctness have never managed to cross the practicality gap for widespread adoption.

austincheney 7y ago
Many security practitioners are self taught and the security certifications compensate for that. https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CISSP/experience-requirements https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CISSP/experience-require...
Nasrudith 7y ago
There is a third issue to licensing that dates back to ancient "law of strongmen" without even lofty claimed principles like divine right, let alone anything worth folllwing of free will; introducing a law that cannot be enforced only breeds contempt for the law. It is hard, expensive, and rare to covertly build infastructure. It isn't the case for software. Just blindly aping it would be draconian and silly. At best it could be a license for specific safety critical applications but that would be dependent upon the licensed ones actually doing a better job at being safer which is harder for the first two reasons you listed. Hell certifications are infamous for generally not being that career useful.
kqr 7y ago
> One huge issue with introducing licensing in software engineering is the fact that there are a great many very competent self taught software engineers. This breaks the conventional model of how licensing works with its close coupling to university degree programs. Uncle Bob argues that this is why we need to start self-policing and create certification structures that take this into account. If we don't, the next software-related disaster will force governments to set up regulatory structures the only way they know how -- tied to university degrees. They won't understand the value of a self-taught developer. We do. We should be the ones to create structures in which such people can be officially recognised for their abilities.

by api 7y ago

austincheney 7y ago

Many security practitioners are self taught and the security certifications compensate for that. https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CISSP/experience-requirements https://www.isc2.org/Certifications/CISSP/experience-require...

Nasrudith 7y ago

There is a third issue to licensing that dates back to ancient "law of strongmen" without even lofty claimed principles like divine right, let alone anything worth folllwing of free will; introducing a law that cannot be enforced only breeds contempt for the law. It is hard, expensive, and rare to covertly build infastructure. It isn't the case for software. Just blindly aping it would be draconian and silly. At best it could be a license for specific safety critical applications but that would be dependent upon the licensed ones actually doing a better job at being safer which is harder for the first two reasons you listed. Hell certifications are infamous for generally not being that career useful.

kqr 7y ago

> One huge issue with introducing licensing in software engineering is the fact that there are a great many very competent self taught software engineers. This breaks the conventional model of how licensing works with its close coupling to university degree programs. Uncle Bob argues that this is why we need to start self-policing and create certification structures that take this into account. If we don't, the next software-related disaster will force governments to set up regulatory structures the only way they know how -- tied to university degrees. They won't understand the value of a self-taught developer. We do. We should be the ones to create structures in which such people can be officially recognised for their abilities.