3 ms·

If we had a professional association for software engineers that was nationally recognized one benefit of this would be around standards and practices being set

If we had a professional association for software engineers that was nationally recognized one benefit of this would be around standards and practices being set industry wide and having a professional association that advocates on behalf of engineers to have them enforced. Other engineering professions do have precedent shown for this.

pjmorris 2y ago
Tom DeMarco (co-author of 'Peopleware' and other SE classics) has argued that the market is a better selection mechanism than a certifying body, which tends toward seizure of power rather than societal good. I can't turn up the original article, but Jeff Atwood quotes the relevant bits [0]. I'm not convinced that either certification itself or the market represent the most effective means to achieving societal good. I think what history shows is that real consequences for shoddy work are required [1]. To date, software makers haven't really been held liable for consequences, but I expect that will change if we don't clean up our act. [0] https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter/ [1] "229 If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death." - Hammurabi's Code, ~1750 BC
Spooky23 2y ago
I think it any make sense for critical infrastructure, but the software industry is still in high growth mode. Allowing individual engineers to be de-licensed creates a culture adherence to norms is the priority. If you ever worked with a civil engineering organization… it’s not exactly a hotbed of innovation. Alot of the professional associations spend more time creating make-work regulations than actual safety or engineering. For example, in New York, something as trivial as refurbishing a moderate volume street crossing in an urban area requires $750k-$1M of services to address ADA compliance, multi-modal transit accommodation and other factors.

pjmorris 2y ago

Tom DeMarco (co-author of 'Peopleware' and other SE classics) has argued that the market is a better selection mechanism than a certifying body, which tends toward seizure of power rather than societal good. I can't turn up the original article, but Jeff Atwood quotes the relevant bits [0]. I'm not convinced that either certification itself or the market represent the most effective means to achieving societal good. I think what history shows is that real consequences for shoddy work are required [1]. To date, software makers haven't really been held liable for consequences, but I expect that will change if we don't clean up our act. [0] https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter/ [1] "229 If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death." - Hammurabi's Code, ~1750 BC

Spooky23 2y ago

I think it any make sense for critical infrastructure, but the software industry is still in high growth mode. Allowing individual engineers to be de-licensed creates a culture adherence to norms is the priority. If you ever worked with a civil engineering organization… it’s not exactly a hotbed of innovation. Alot of the professional associations spend more time creating make-work regulations than actual safety or engineering. For example, in New York, something as trivial as refurbishing a moderate volume street crossing in an urban area requires $750k-$1M of services to address ADA compliance, multi-modal transit accommodation and other factors.