4 ms·

Maybe that's the point of this oath? Software engineers will refuse to work on these areas, unless demands of the oath can be met.

by watt 6y ago

Chris2048 6y ago
If a doctor says no, it's because of legal liability and risk to licence. For the same reason, it's harder to hire some rando budget doctor because the field is gate-keeped by the requirement of a licence, and liability. You can't magically make Engineering the same without the same conditions. Add barriers top entry that see my pay rise, or have cheap programmers with no liability.
- bumby 6y ago
  Engineering already has these barriers, they just aren’t required or enforced. I’ve never been on a project that requires a software product stamped by a licensed engineer. NCEES dropped the software license because there was so little demand, compared to, say, civil engineers who consider a license a rite of passage to career growth.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    You need a licence to practice medicine, if there is something called a "license" for engineering but isn't required for practise, then it's not the same. If we have the same barriers, but not enforced, then we don't have the same barriers.
    - bumby 6y ago
      That’s not quite right. You actually do need a state license in the US to practice engineering for the public except for a few basic instances: 1) you work for the federal government 2) you work under a licensed engineer 3) you work under an industrial exemption There’s differences depending on state. There has been a more concerted effort to remove #3 recently due to both political reasons and the technical issues in this thread. Most people performing engineering work under an industrial exemption don’t actually realize it. Again, this is different state to state. For example, in some states you can’t start a business with “engineering” in the name unless you have a certain percentage of owners/principals with an engineering license.[1] What actually happens is conflating terms in common parlance. “Engineer” and “engineer” are not necessarily the same. For example, a computer engineer may work under an industrial exemption (due to working in a manufacturing service) while a software engineer does not. Legally, an “Engineer” claims an explicit responsibility to public safety.[2] Apropos to the headline article, there is a distinction with this difference. [1] https://fxbinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/state-by-state-summary-licensure-law-exemptions.pdf https://fxbinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/state-by-state... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/programmers-should-not-call-themselves-engineers/414271/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/progr...
wonderwonder 6y ago
A doctor refusing to do a procedure because he worries for his patient is seen as a good guy doing what is right, he is in his opinion saving a life. In addition he is trying to avoid the massive cost of a medical malpractice suit. A software developer refusing a job because it does not meet his ethical parameters is just an unemployed software engineer.
- bumby 6y ago
  I think one of the issues is the domain of is vast. One developer may be working on a basic CRUD app while the next is working safety critical code on a vessel going to Mars. There are definitely areas where the prudent thing for a developer to do is raise a dissenting opinion, if not halting work. What seems lacking is clear industry consensus standards to back up that decision.

Maybe that's the point of this oath? Software engineers will refuse to work on these areas, unless demands of the oath can be met.

by watt 6y ago

Maybe that's the point of this oath? Software engineers will refuse to work on these areas, unless demands of the oath can be met.

Chris2048 6y ago

If a doctor says no, it's because of legal liability and risk to licence. For the same reason, it's harder to hire some rando budget doctor because the field is gate-keeped by the requirement of a licence, and liability. You can't magically make Engineering the same without the same conditions. Add barriers top entry that see my pay rise, or have cheap programmers with no liability.

bumby 6y ago
Engineering already has these barriers, they just aren’t required or enforced. I’ve never been on a project that requires a software product stamped by a licensed engineer. NCEES dropped the software license because there was so little demand, compared to, say, civil engineers who consider a license a rite of passage to career growth.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  You need a licence to practice medicine, if there is something called a "license" for engineering but isn't required for practise, then it's not the same. If we have the same barriers, but not enforced, then we don't have the same barriers.
  - bumby 6y ago
    That’s not quite right. You actually do need a state license in the US to practice engineering for the public except for a few basic instances: 1) you work for the federal government 2) you work under a licensed engineer 3) you work under an industrial exemption There’s differences depending on state. There has been a more concerted effort to remove #3 recently due to both political reasons and the technical issues in this thread. Most people performing engineering work under an industrial exemption don’t actually realize it. Again, this is different state to state. For example, in some states you can’t start a business with “engineering” in the name unless you have a certain percentage of owners/principals with an engineering license.[1] What actually happens is conflating terms in common parlance. “Engineer” and “engineer” are not necessarily the same. For example, a computer engineer may work under an industrial exemption (due to working in a manufacturing service) while a software engineer does not. Legally, an “Engineer” claims an explicit responsibility to public safety.[2] Apropos to the headline article, there is a distinction with this difference. [1] https://fxbinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/state-by-state-summary-licensure-law-exemptions.pdf https://fxbinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/state-by-state... [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/programmers-should-not-call-themselves-engineers/414271/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/11/progr...

wonderwonder 6y ago

A doctor refusing to do a procedure because he worries for his patient is seen as a good guy doing what is right, he is in his opinion saving a life. In addition he is trying to avoid the massive cost of a medical malpractice suit. A software developer refusing a job because it does not meet his ethical parameters is just an unemployed software engineer.

bumby 6y ago
I think one of the issues is the domain of is vast. One developer may be working on a basic CRUD app while the next is working safety critical code on a vessel going to Mars. There are definitely areas where the prudent thing for a developer to do is raise a dissenting opinion, if not halting work. What seems lacking is clear industry consensus standards to back up that decision.