3 ms·

Same, which is why I bristle at my title containing "engineer" as I don't have a PE. If most software engineers want to legitimately call themselves engineers,

Same, which is why I bristle at my title containing "engineer" as I don't have a PE. If most software engineers want to legitimately call themselves engineers, the field should be formalized as an engineering discipline, including coursework, certification/licensure and, better yet, apprenticeship-like experiences required for "real" engineers working toward their Professional Engineer license. Edit: I'd add this goes double when working on safety-critical code, or anything touching protected health data, or payment/financial data. It's just too toxic and valuable to leave to a chance change.

pxc 2y ago
> If most software engineers want to legitimately call themselves engineers, the field should be formalized as an engineering discipline, including coursework, certification/licensure and, better yet, apprenticeship-like experiences required for "real" engineers working toward their Professional Engineer license. I agree, although in reality it's not chiefly developers themselves who are responsible for quick, lazy approaches, is it? Developers are typically the parties most pained by technical debt. If the discipline of software development is to become software engineering in earnest, there will have to be some pressure all the way up the management chain— pressure strong enough to outweigh software's low cost of iteration. I imagine this is really rare outside of highly regulated industries and very specific applications, and even with a formalized software engineering discipline, many companies will prefer sloppy software development and many competitive markets will 'select for' such companies.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > although in reality it's not chiefly developers themselves who are responsible for quick, lazy approaches, is it? Developers are typically the parties most pained by technical debt. I'd agree with you, except... ooh, a new, shiny, untested language / framework / platform to rewrite the codebase in!
  - hello_moto 2y ago
    Yup, like for example: Rust!
    - pxc 2y ago
      Rust isn't really new or untested, though. I issue with RIIR isn't Rust so much as the act of rewriting, which carries inherent risks. I think the temptation to rewrite also reflects how messy and unworkable we let codebasee get— sometimes that impulse is more about the pain of working with the existing codebase than anything else.
      - ethbr1 2y ago
        To me, the tragedy of rewriting is the underappreciation of why the gnarliest 5% of the codebase is there. Occasionally, usually because initial requirements were sorely lacking or changed, you can simplify the system via rewrite. More often, everyone ends up realizing they didn't actually understand that last 5% of edge cases. And then you've either replaced the working system with a 95% complete solution (so common in modern software) or you produce a system equally ugly once you handle that last 5%.
paulddraper 2y ago
> I bristle at my title containing "engineer" as I don't have a PE Lol HN. Outside of civil/structural disciplines, PE is not required for engineering. Mechanical, Chemical, Electrical, Nuclear don't require it. I've literally never met an Aerospace engineer with a PE, and they build planes 'n sht. --- It's a pure resume padder, like Cisco or AWS certifications.
- theideaofcoffee 2y ago
  "Nah, those uppity software engineers don't need any additional training. How dare they think they have any right to tell us how to manage this roll-out" says management, "We'll just cowboy this update and wipe out 8.5 million systems. Besides, it's not like they're working on nuclear reactors, yeah? How complex could it be?" You're just proving my point in that it's a CTO that dismisses the argument in a rather childish way. They would be the one to be told 'no' by the now-professional software engineers when their license and livelihood is on the line while being pressured to do something that goes against their recommendation. Funny how that power dynamic changes when there's something real on the line and not just an inflated title, huh? Perhaps if those aerospace and software engineers that attempted to blow the whistle at Boeing were successful and were empowered via their license to say enough and stop development on MCAS, there wouldn’t be 300+ dead people because of a software change rammed through by management. The licensure ain’t just window dressing. It has real, actual impact on real human lives. Don’t be so dismissive.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    He isn't dismissive about the problem, he's dismissive about the proposed solution. A certificate would not change the status quo at this point. Software developers/engineers are - for the most part - seen as essentially blue collar workers. Replaceable gears that MBAs can just "scale up" or "down" to fit their currently desired velocity. Let's ignore the fact that this fundamentally isn't true, but it's what they believe. The work they do is decided by MBAs, and the time they have to implement these changes is heavily influenced by other MBAs. Adding a certificate to this mix will change literally nothing
  - 2y ago

pxc 2y ago

> If most software engineers want to legitimately call themselves engineers, the field should be formalized as an engineering discipline, including coursework, certification/licensure and, better yet, apprenticeship-like experiences required for "real" engineers working toward their Professional Engineer license. I agree, although in reality it's not chiefly developers themselves who are responsible for quick, lazy approaches, is it? Developers are typically the parties most pained by technical debt. If the discipline of software development is to become software engineering in earnest, there will have to be some pressure all the way up the management chain— pressure strong enough to outweigh software's low cost of iteration. I imagine this is really rare outside of highly regulated industries and very specific applications, and even with a formalized software engineering discipline, many companies will prefer sloppy software development and many competitive markets will 'select for' such companies.

ethbr1 2y ago
> although in reality it's not chiefly developers themselves who are responsible for quick, lazy approaches, is it? Developers are typically the parties most pained by technical debt. I'd agree with you, except... ooh, a new, shiny, untested language / framework / platform to rewrite the codebase in!
- hello_moto 2y ago
  Yup, like for example: Rust!
  - pxc 2y ago
    Rust isn't really new or untested, though. I issue with RIIR isn't Rust so much as the act of rewriting, which carries inherent risks. I think the temptation to rewrite also reflects how messy and unworkable we let codebasee get— sometimes that impulse is more about the pain of working with the existing codebase than anything else.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      To me, the tragedy of rewriting is the underappreciation of why the gnarliest 5% of the codebase is there. Occasionally, usually because initial requirements were sorely lacking or changed, you can simplify the system via rewrite. More often, everyone ends up realizing they didn't actually understand that last 5% of edge cases. And then you've either replaced the working system with a 95% complete solution (so common in modern software) or you produce a system equally ugly once you handle that last 5%.

paulddraper 2y ago

> I bristle at my title containing "engineer" as I don't have a PE Lol HN. Outside of civil/structural disciplines, PE is not required for engineering. Mechanical, Chemical, Electrical, Nuclear don't require it. I've literally never met an Aerospace engineer with a PE, and they build planes 'n sht. --- It's a pure resume padder, like Cisco or AWS certifications.

theideaofcoffee 2y ago
"Nah, those uppity software engineers don't need any additional training. How dare they think they have any right to tell us how to manage this roll-out" says management, "We'll just cowboy this update and wipe out 8.5 million systems. Besides, it's not like they're working on nuclear reactors, yeah? How complex could it be?" You're just proving my point in that it's a CTO that dismisses the argument in a rather childish way. They would be the one to be told 'no' by the now-professional software engineers when their license and livelihood is on the line while being pressured to do something that goes against their recommendation. Funny how that power dynamic changes when there's something real on the line and not just an inflated title, huh? Perhaps if those aerospace and software engineers that attempted to blow the whistle at Boeing were successful and were empowered via their license to say enough and stop development on MCAS, there wouldn’t be 300+ dead people because of a software change rammed through by management. The licensure ain’t just window dressing. It has real, actual impact on real human lives. Don’t be so dismissive.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  He isn't dismissive about the problem, he's dismissive about the proposed solution. A certificate would not change the status quo at this point. Software developers/engineers are - for the most part - seen as essentially blue collar workers. Replaceable gears that MBAs can just "scale up" or "down" to fit their currently desired velocity. Let's ignore the fact that this fundamentally isn't true, but it's what they believe. The work they do is decided by MBAs, and the time they have to implement these changes is heavily influenced by other MBAs. Adding a certificate to this mix will change literally nothing
- 2y ago