3 ms·
Can't agree more. I've been saying for years that we should have some professionalism added to the industry. It doesn't mean that everyone who writes code must
by agentultra 4y ago
Can't agree more. I've been saying for years that we should have some professionalism added to the industry.
It doesn't mean that everyone who writes code must be licensed. But to determine if software is fit for purpose you must be. Liability is important and software doesn't have to threaten life and limb to benefit from it. Many engineering professions also protect property and business interests (along with life and limb).
What I hope such a system would provide is a means to prevent companies from cutting corners for the sake of profits and give engineers the right to say what is fit for purpose. Too many breaches that have cost economies too much money happen because IT is incentivized to release now and fix it later. Then hundreds of thousands of peoples' financial details are leaked or their pensions disappear. And the current system of liabilities don't protect the end users or dissuade the software industry from continuing on this destructive course.
We also don't account for externalities well. Consider how many years PoW crypto mining has been going on, growing, and forcing new coal plants to open to keep up with demand. People in rich countries don't care because it's not happening in their backyard and it is promising to make some of them rich. That happened because we have no social safeguards against bad technology harming the environment/society/etc. You can write a software service that exists to use up as much energy as possible and you will never face any consequences for the damage caused.
We barely slap people on the wrist for organized crime let alone corporate crime, negligence, etc.
We're not talking about your high school web project here. We don't have to prevent people from learning and building things on their own. I just think we need to prevent companies from rolling the dice with our future and let the folks who know what they're doing run the show.
- chrisseaton 4y agoI recently got professionally qualified as a software engineer with a capital E. I'm still the same regular programmer I ever was! Not sure a piece of paper really solves anything.
- dimgl 4y agoI think it does. I think the barrier for entry is way too low now.
- agentultra 4y agoI'm working on getting myself in there as well. I don't think we have the legal frameworks set up yet. Even where I'm from the professional engineering guilds are trying to move in on software but the enforcement is too weak to be useful.
- chrisseaton 4y agoIn the UK the legal framework is 'chartership', and 'chartered' is the legally protected word.
- agentultra 4y agoIn Canada it varies by province and most of them protect, 'Professional Engineer'. Some are going after 'Engineer' (in the software context) entirely but this had been tested in the 90s and didn't work. I mean that, at least in Canada, there aren't strong legal frameworks that require P.Eng to sign off on projects, to manage development teams, the protect their jobs, liability, etc. So far from others who've received the designation it's mostly "just paper" for now.
- helpfulmandrill 4y agoHow does one do that? I realise this may vary by jurisdiction...
- chrisseaton 4y agoI'm a 'Chartered Engineer' - you just apply https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/get-registered/chartered-engineer-ceng/ https://www.bcs.org/membership-and-registrations/get-registe....
- bee_rider 4y agoIt shouldn't add any capability on your side. But it should help other people distinguish between you and someone who couldn't pass whatever test, right? Of course we don't really know how well that test maps to real world competency!
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- 908B64B197 4y ago> What I hope such a system would provide is a means to prevent companies from cutting corners for the sake of profits and give engineers the right to say what is fit for purpose. Too many breaches that have cost economies too much money happen because IT is incentivized to release now and fix it later. I find that, at companies that tend to beat market expectations it's already like that. You can always tell whether they consider engineering a cost center or a core part of the business. It's no accident that the CEOs of the majority of fortunes 5 are engineers...