6 ms·

> hiring becoming rife with credentialism I disagree with this, the profession is becoming more like a real profession instead of a whole bunch of people just

> hiring becoming rife with credentialism I disagree with this, the profession is becoming more like a real profession instead of a whole bunch of people just slinging code left and right. The reason programmers make good money is because we're at the beginning of a great profession like lawyers and finance guys did when their professions began. We will come to a time that the programming career requires certification kinda like nursing, lawyers or finance guys. The question is how strict the certification process will be... will it be like CPAs where you can work in finance and eventually certify or like lawyers where you can't write code professionally without the license.

jaspax 6y ago
> the profession is becoming more like a real profession So rife with credentialism, just like she said. The day you need a license to write code is the day I start a coding-as-civil-disobedience program.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  > The day you need a license to write code is the day I start a coding-as-civil-disobedience program. It's the same as being a lawyer, a doctor, a nurse or a CPA. Those are careers that can cause a lot of harm to other people, yet programmers think they're above it all. Wait until someone takes control of a smart power grid, or a self driving car/truck/airplane because of outsourcing or someone writes some shit software that causes an airplane to fall out of the sky.
  - richiebful1 6y ago
    The Boeing 737 MAX is already an example of cost-cutting in software leading to measurable deaths. But Boeing took the flak, not the software engineering profession as a whole.
  - scollet 6y ago
    Right, it's a matter of risk level. There are plenty - if not the majority - of disciplines in software and firmware that don't have these levels of risk. I can still write a dog sharing social media app, but I wouldn't be able to interface with a satellite. Something along those lines.
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > The day you need a license to write code You don't need a license to tell your friend how you were able to beat a ticket in traffic court (that is, give free legal advice as a non-professional). You do need a license to charge somebody to represent them in court.
danesparza 6y ago
IMHO, chasing a "real profession" in software is an illusion to begin with but I suppose some mental models about a career can be useful. Comparing to the law or medical careers is a farce. The law doesn't change quickly, and medicine hardly changes at all from year to year. Our mental models of civilization don't really change much from year to year. And the human body doesn't visibly evolve even from decade to decade. Of course it's easier to have a meaningful certification in those fields. Software still changes incredibly quickly. Not as quickly as in the 1990's -- but not slowly enough to warrant blanket certification bureaucracy that will just have to change in 5-10 years.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  > Software still changes incredibly quickly. Not as quickly as in the 1990's -- but not slowly enough to warrant blanket certification bureaucracy that will just have to change in 5-10 years. Software changes, fundamentals do not. The people who complain about credentialism are the same people whose answer to "my code is slow" is "just add more hardware". We've built abstraction layers to make software easier to write to reduce the human cost but in term end up with less qualified people.
  - michaelt 6y ago
    > Software changes, fundamentals do not. The Big-O complexity of mergesort hasn't changed since the 1990s, certainly. But our industry's answer to "what does a properly designed website login system look like?" has changed a great deal since the 1990s.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
      Right, but on the flip side, how many companies do you think should have publicly exposed Elasticsearch clusters before we think of having certified for security.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
The "lite" version of certification in tech could be a requirement for a programmer equivalent of a Professional Engineer to sign off on any piece of software that becomes used in a product or service offered to people (whether commercial, public or by non-profit orgs). This way, I'd be free to develop my Open Source library and engage in exploratory coding, and you'd be free to play with it internally, but if you want to use it in a product you sell to people, you'll have to get a licensed software person to sign off on your project. You probably won't want to waste their (and your) time on untrustworthy projects, so I'll have to get a licensed software person to sign off on particular releases of my library to certify quality, to make it more likely someone will want to use it. This would introduce some inertia in software - not enough to be stifling, it won't pry away Turing-complete languages from the hands of curious children, but perhaps it'll be enough to introduce some sanity into the industry.
- balsop 6y ago
  It seems to me that all kinds of existing certifications in software have introduced insanity. It will create another layer of bureaucrats who are after certifications but cannot program. It will further kill "open" source software, which already is destroyed by corporations. I think programming is too open ended for certifications.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    Look at the cloud certifications... you don't need them to use AWS cloud but you get incentives to certify your people.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Existing certifications in software are just attempts at making money off gullible people (EDIT: at least to my experience, most are). I'm talking about real, government-backed certifications: that is, you can't sell serious software products that don't get a sign-off of someone licensed, and that licensed person then has career liability (and in extreme cases, monetary penalty or even jail time) for failures of that software. As far as I know, software is the only field that can get away with something like this: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Imagine finding something like this on a pack of aspirin.

jaspax 6y ago

> the profession is becoming more like a real profession So rife with credentialism, just like she said. The day you need a license to write code is the day I start a coding-as-civil-disobedience program.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
> The day you need a license to write code is the day I start a coding-as-civil-disobedience program. It's the same as being a lawyer, a doctor, a nurse or a CPA. Those are careers that can cause a lot of harm to other people, yet programmers think they're above it all. Wait until someone takes control of a smart power grid, or a self driving car/truck/airplane because of outsourcing or someone writes some shit software that causes an airplane to fall out of the sky.
- richiebful1 6y ago
  The Boeing 737 MAX is already an example of cost-cutting in software leading to measurable deaths. But Boeing took the flak, not the software engineering profession as a whole.
- scollet 6y ago
  Right, it's a matter of risk level. There are plenty - if not the majority - of disciplines in software and firmware that don't have these levels of risk. I can still write a dog sharing social media app, but I wouldn't be able to interface with a satellite. Something along those lines.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> The day you need a license to write code You don't need a license to tell your friend how you were able to beat a ticket in traffic court (that is, give free legal advice as a non-professional). You do need a license to charge somebody to represent them in court.

danesparza 6y ago

IMHO, chasing a "real profession" in software is an illusion to begin with but I suppose some mental models about a career can be useful. Comparing to the law or medical careers is a farce. The law doesn't change quickly, and medicine hardly changes at all from year to year. Our mental models of civilization don't really change much from year to year. And the human body doesn't visibly evolve even from decade to decade. Of course it's easier to have a meaningful certification in those fields. Software still changes incredibly quickly. Not as quickly as in the 1990's -- but not slowly enough to warrant blanket certification bureaucracy that will just have to change in 5-10 years.

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
> Software still changes incredibly quickly. Not as quickly as in the 1990's -- but not slowly enough to warrant blanket certification bureaucracy that will just have to change in 5-10 years. Software changes, fundamentals do not. The people who complain about credentialism are the same people whose answer to "my code is slow" is "just add more hardware". We've built abstraction layers to make software easier to write to reduce the human cost but in term end up with less qualified people.
- michaelt 6y ago
  > Software changes, fundamentals do not. The Big-O complexity of mergesort hasn't changed since the 1990s, certainly. But our industry's answer to "what does a properly designed website login system look like?" has changed a great deal since the 1990s.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
    Right, but on the flip side, how many companies do you think should have publicly exposed Elasticsearch clusters before we think of having certified for security.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

The "lite" version of certification in tech could be a requirement for a programmer equivalent of a Professional Engineer to sign off on any piece of software that becomes used in a product or service offered to people (whether commercial, public or by non-profit orgs). This way, I'd be free to develop my Open Source library and engage in exploratory coding, and you'd be free to play with it internally, but if you want to use it in a product you sell to people, you'll have to get a licensed software person to sign off on your project. You probably won't want to waste their (and your) time on untrustworthy projects, so I'll have to get a licensed software person to sign off on particular releases of my library to certify quality, to make it more likely someone will want to use it. This would introduce some inertia in software - not enough to be stifling, it won't pry away Turing-complete languages from the hands of curious children, but perhaps it'll be enough to introduce some sanity into the industry.

balsop 6y ago
It seems to me that all kinds of existing certifications in software have introduced insanity. It will create another layer of bureaucrats who are after certifications but cannot program. It will further kill "open" source software, which already is destroyed by corporations. I think programming is too open ended for certifications.
- WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  Look at the cloud certifications... you don't need them to use AWS cloud but you get incentives to certify your people.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Existing certifications in software are just attempts at making money off gullible people (EDIT: at least to my experience, most are). I'm talking about real, government-backed certifications: that is, you can't sell serious software products that don't get a sign-off of someone licensed, and that licensed person then has career liability (and in extreme cases, monetary penalty or even jail time) for failures of that software. As far as I know, software is the only field that can get away with something like this: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. Imagine finding something like this on a pack of aspirin.