4 ms·

Well, to be fair, I'm not saying that certifying software developers is reasonable. As a practical matter, the industry moves too fast anyway. A PE license is f

Well, to be fair, I'm not saying that certifying software developers is reasonable. As a practical matter, the industry moves too fast anyway. A PE license is for life. Even if there were a software engineering license, I wouldn't necessarily trust someone who was licensed back in the COBOL days to know anything about modern web development. I'm just saying that if there's enough LEGAL pressure, this is almost inevitable. A Fortune 1000 company is not going to just absorb the costs of failed products (like self-driving cars killing people), and do nothing about it to cover their asses.

FpUser 4y ago
>"A Fortune 1000 company is not going to just absorb the costs of failed products (like self-driving cars killing people), and do nothing about it to cover their asses." And introducing certification is not going to to stop the killing and will not "cover their asses" either. Out tech currently is simply not adequate to solving this problem in the way acceptable to corporations and the end customers.
- liketochill 4y ago
  It’s liability not certification. What you get with a professional engineer is someone who is liable for their work.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    This is why I do not understand people being called software engineers when they're anything but. As you said engineer is more about ethics and liability. I am designing and developing software for more than 40 years but I would never call myself an engineer. Nor would I ever want to become one. When it comes to the issues of safety the proper outcome should be organized by a processes, verification and other things that would not let that piece of code get into production. Putting this kind of load on software developer I think is utterly demented idea.
    - liketochill 4y ago
      For engineers the foremost value is safeguarding human life and the second might be protecting the environment. If anyone is developing software that can cause loss of life or damage the environment then I think the engineering ethics and processes you mentioned are a necessary load. Of course then the output of the Programmer is reduced, but that is the tradeoff to make for the type of code flying airplanes or driving cars
      - FpUser 4y ago
        The processes and other things do not have to be set by programmer. It is insane to have programmers do all those things. Their task is to design develop software given constraints. Safety is a constraint that can be specced separately. And testing should be done by the independent team
unity1001 4y ago
> A Fortune 1000 company is not going to just absorb the costs of failed products (like self-driving cars killing people) Except, that's precisely what they do. Such costs are calculated into the product when it is being developed. Just read about the Avandia drug scandal.

FpUser 4y ago

>"A Fortune 1000 company is not going to just absorb the costs of failed products (like self-driving cars killing people), and do nothing about it to cover their asses." And introducing certification is not going to to stop the killing and will not "cover their asses" either. Out tech currently is simply not adequate to solving this problem in the way acceptable to corporations and the end customers.

liketochill 4y ago
It’s liability not certification. What you get with a professional engineer is someone who is liable for their work.
- FpUser 4y ago
  This is why I do not understand people being called software engineers when they're anything but. As you said engineer is more about ethics and liability. I am designing and developing software for more than 40 years but I would never call myself an engineer. Nor would I ever want to become one. When it comes to the issues of safety the proper outcome should be organized by a processes, verification and other things that would not let that piece of code get into production. Putting this kind of load on software developer I think is utterly demented idea.
  - liketochill 4y ago
    For engineers the foremost value is safeguarding human life and the second might be protecting the environment. If anyone is developing software that can cause loss of life or damage the environment then I think the engineering ethics and processes you mentioned are a necessary load. Of course then the output of the Programmer is reduced, but that is the tradeoff to make for the type of code flying airplanes or driving cars
    - FpUser 4y ago
      The processes and other things do not have to be set by programmer. It is insane to have programmers do all those things. Their task is to design develop software given constraints. Safety is a constraint that can be specced separately. And testing should be done by the independent team

unity1001 4y ago

> A Fortune 1000 company is not going to just absorb the costs of failed products (like self-driving cars killing people) Except, that's precisely what they do. Such costs are calculated into the product when it is being developed. Just read about the Avandia drug scandal.