4 ms·

I believe the real core part of being a licensed engineer is you can be personally liable for mistakes in plans you sign off on, and to be able to do this you n

by exdsq 5y ago

I believe the real core part of being a licensed engineer is you can be personally liable for mistakes in plans you sign off on, and to be able to do this you need to take exams and complete training showing you're capable of doing this correctly. This isn't a thing in programming.

chongli 5y ago
It is a thing for software engineering students at University of Waterloo. They take physics and chemistry courses and learn all about safety and various standards. They write exams and at the end they become licensed professional engineers with iron rings.
- exdsq 5y ago
  But there are very few software projects that have this level of rigor that I'm aware of, right? I've not heard of a project where a software engineer has had to sign off on it like a civil engineer signs off a bridge. Maybe they exist! But I've worked on critical systems and yet to see this in practice.
  - chongli 5y ago
    I think you’re right. However, I do know that CSPE [1] is trying to change this. It’s a bit of an uphill battle for them, though. Ideally (for them) there would be new laws in place mandating professionally certified software engineers signing off on projects. Having said that, it would probably take a bunch of high profile disasters to move the needle on the issue, politically speaking.
bcrosby95 5y ago
This is pretty interesting to me. I think most software developers think of engineering as making sure the software will perform under stress. But this requirement is (usually) meaningless from a customer safety standpoint. Sure it sucks if the system breaks, but unless your business model is also safety critical, that failure isn't a safety problem. But leaking customer data is a safety problem. So for most people, software engineering should as much (or more) about security as things like time complexity tradeoffs.

by exdsq 5y ago

chongli 5y ago

It is a thing for software engineering students at University of Waterloo. They take physics and chemistry courses and learn all about safety and various standards. They write exams and at the end they become licensed professional engineers with iron rings.

exdsq 5y ago
But there are very few software projects that have this level of rigor that I'm aware of, right? I've not heard of a project where a software engineer has had to sign off on it like a civil engineer signs off a bridge. Maybe they exist! But I've worked on critical systems and yet to see this in practice.
- chongli 5y ago
  I think you’re right. However, I do know that CSPE [1] is trying to change this. It’s a bit of an uphill battle for them, though. Ideally (for them) there would be new laws in place mandating professionally certified software engineers signing off on projects. Having said that, it would probably take a bunch of high profile disasters to move the needle on the issue, politically speaking.

bcrosby95 5y ago

This is pretty interesting to me. I think most software developers think of engineering as making sure the software will perform under stress. But this requirement is (usually) meaningless from a customer safety standpoint. Sure it sucks if the system breaks, but unless your business model is also safety critical, that failure isn't a safety problem. But leaking customer data is a safety problem. So for most people, software engineering should as much (or more) about security as things like time complexity tradeoffs.