4 ms·
>If we want to call ourselves software engineers, we need to start holding ourselves and each other to higher standards. We can do better. There's a limit to i
by vsareto 4y ago
>If we want to call ourselves software engineers, we need to start holding ourselves and each other to higher standards. We can do better.
There's a limit to individual accountability. You need professional accreditation which brings training, standards, and legal resources.
- wyager 4y agoSoftware is still developing at a pace that burdensome regulatory red tape would represent a completely unacceptable destruction of value. Defaulting to red tape as the mechanism to improve the quality of software is also very short-sighted. Software engineering has the absolutely unique property among all engineering disciplines that we are working with abstract systems which are subject to formal verification. We can get arbitrarily high levels of assurance, with zero need whatsoever for some stodgy accreditation body. This is not happening much at the moment because money is (artificially) cheap, so it makes sense to hack together some crap and get it out the door as quickly as possible. There are solutions to this; slapping regulations on software is not the best one.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> burdensome regulatory red tape would represent a completely unacceptable destruction of value. Typical holier-than-thou software industry arrogance and hubris. There is nothing forcing red tape regulation on all engineers nor would it for software engineers.
- wyager 4y agoWhat exactly do you think becoming more like e.g. civil engineering actually entails?
- vsareto 4y agoEstablishing a consistent level of competence and training for entrants is important for consistent quality in the field. It will also help companies to stop inventing their own unique interview process and just look for verified accreditation when determining whether to hire someone. It's absolutely bonkers that some companies don't trust the general population of devs with 5+ years of verified experience and still gives them technical interviews. But you can't really point them to a good standard to hire with either.
- wyager 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law Only metrics resistant to Goodhart will work here, and most of them are illegal to use in the US under the current employment law paradigm. One of the reasons software as an industry makes so much money is there are still ways to implement Goodhart-resistant hiring in the US. Going into too much detail here is somewhat hazardous, so I will leave it there.
- vsareto 4y ago>Going into too much detail here is somewhat hazardous I don't exactly believe that. And we have other professional exams/processes that generate good professionals. Folding over and saying "Oh we can't do this, Goodhart's law exists" just seems like a weak reason to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
- wyager 4y agoWhy do you think certified engineering professions make a fraction of the money of computer engineering/software dev?
- marmetio 4y agoYeah, it's the responsibility of their safety office to make sure their processes are adequate. Search for jobs like "FAA Safety Engineer".