3 ms·

Isn’t it easier to just stick to the term and not fight with it? Everyone involved knows that “software engineering” is not like “civil engineering”, and those

by wruza 5y ago

Isn’t it easier to just stick to the term and not fight with it? Everyone involved knows that “software engineering” is not like “civil engineering”, and those who don’t, usually don’t know either. It has no legal nor practical sense, so why bother?

qball 5y ago
>It has no legal nor practical sense, so why bother? You might be surprised to know that it actually does matter, and it matters in a way that depresses American software engineer salaries: work visas. The fact that the US government considers "software engineering" to be equal to "civil engineering" means that the TN visa (since we're talking about Canada) applies to people qualified to be employed as software engineers in the US. As such, this visa allows tens of thousands of equally-qualified software engineers from Canada to compete for a good proportion of the same jobs thereby depressing American wages; why wouldn't an American software engineer (or a Canadian P.Eng who wants to make a business but can't afford the better engineers) be opposed to the weak American definition being the only one that really matters?
- mook 5y ago
  Note that Computer Systems Analyst is a profession listed in NAFTA; I was at a company where they used that. Also, the NAFTA definition of Engineer doesn't require a P. Eng title. (https://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/amresource/8cfr2146.htm https://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/amresource/8cfr2146.htm was linked from state.gov)
psyc 5y ago
It didn’t used to bother me back when I could assume everyone else understood it was an industry specific title based on a metaphor! I even used to defend the title by saying, “Relax; it’s an industry-specific title, not a kind of engineer.” Like “Software Architect” is understood not to be a kind of architect. But over the last few years I’ve seen dozens of HNers lay out technical arguments for why they ARE engineers. So, I never took a single engineering class, have no engineering cert, don’t know much about the ethos, and barely even know the definition without looking it up. But I’m supposed to not rock the boat, and claim to be one, like I accidentally became an engineer in the course of designing, planning, fortifying, testing, and measuring software? Like Daniel-san accidentally became a karate master by waxing cars? Sorry, no. Our “engineering” is just another partially applicable metaphor for what software devs do. But software development is its own set of disciplines. It’s wonderful to pull helpful concepts from other disciplines, but I draw the line at coopting the whole designation.

by wruza 5y ago

qball 5y ago

>It has no legal nor practical sense, so why bother? You might be surprised to know that it actually does matter, and it matters in a way that depresses American software engineer salaries: work visas. The fact that the US government considers "software engineering" to be equal to "civil engineering" means that the TN visa (since we're talking about Canada) applies to people qualified to be employed as software engineers in the US. As such, this visa allows tens of thousands of equally-qualified software engineers from Canada to compete for a good proportion of the same jobs thereby depressing American wages; why wouldn't an American software engineer (or a Canadian P.Eng who wants to make a business but can't afford the better engineers) be opposed to the weak American definition being the only one that really matters?

mook 5y ago
Note that Computer Systems Analyst is a profession listed in NAFTA; I was at a company where they used that. Also, the NAFTA definition of Engineer doesn't require a P. Eng title. (https://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/amresource/8cfr2146.htm https://www.nafsa.org/_/file/_/amresource/8cfr2146.htm was linked from state.gov)

psyc 5y ago

It didn’t used to bother me back when I could assume everyone else understood it was an industry specific title based on a metaphor! I even used to defend the title by saying, “Relax; it’s an industry-specific title, not a kind of engineer.” Like “Software Architect” is understood not to be a kind of architect. But over the last few years I’ve seen dozens of HNers lay out technical arguments for why they ARE engineers. So, I never took a single engineering class, have no engineering cert, don’t know much about the ethos, and barely even know the definition without looking it up. But I’m supposed to not rock the boat, and claim to be one, like I accidentally became an engineer in the course of designing, planning, fortifying, testing, and measuring software? Like Daniel-san accidentally became a karate master by waxing cars? Sorry, no. Our “engineering” is just another partially applicable metaphor for what software devs do. But software development is its own set of disciplines. It’s wonderful to pull helpful concepts from other disciplines, but I draw the line at coopting the whole designation.