5 ms·

Engineer as a term has already drifted vastly since nobody in the field of "Software Engineering" is actually an Engineer if we go by a strict definitions. Eng

Engineer as a term has already drifted vastly since nobody in the field of "Software Engineering" is actually an Engineer if we go by a strict definitions. Engineers are accredited and in some countries even come with a title.

jjtheblunt 6mo ago
i think you accidentally overlooked accredited engineers who happen to be writing software
- Jcampuzano2 6mo ago
  Of course there are engineers who write software, I'm just speaking about the majority of roles where thats not the case.
lkmill 6mo ago
as an actual engineer i just feel sad. i should probably feel happy but i like solving problems. fml i have becomea luddite.
- therealdrag0 6mo ago
  I get it. But there’s plenty of engineering to do in any serious system. I am in a very AI forward company using AI for everything, but I still am solving engineering problems every day.
keeda 6mo ago
> ... nobody in the field of "Software Engineering" is actually an Engineer if we go by a strict definitions. This is a pet peeve of mine, so while I understand what you mean, I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering! And since I've had this discussion before, I'll pre-emptively hazard a guess that the argument boils down to "rigor", and point out that a) economic feasibility is a key part of engineering, b) the level of rigor applied to any project is a function of economics, and c) the economics of software projects is a very wide range. Put another way, statistically most devs work on projects where the blast radius of failure is some minor inconvenience to like, 5 users. We really don't need rigor there, so I can see where you're coming from. But on the other extreme like aviation software, an appropriately extreme level of rigor is applied.
- Jcampuzano2 6mo ago
  I don't really disagree with you. I was just pointing out how the parent mentioned how "engineering" is changing when it already has changed many many times. Of course I want the best of the best who are top notch and rigorously trained working on mission critical software.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 6mo ago
  It's a pet peeve because the truth hurts. We (most of us) aren't doing anything that resembles engineering.
  - keeda 6mo ago
    I'd agree that applies to people, or more accurately specific projects, but not the discipline of software engineering as a whole. Even most of the projects I personally have worked on simply did not need "engineering" as such, but other projects where uptime was critical and the cost of failure was high, there was a much higher level of rigor.
- coldtea 6mo ago
  >I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering! "Structured, mature, legally enforced, physically grounded standards based approach to the construction of repeatable, reliable, verifiable, artifacts under stable (to the degree that matters) external constraints". Some niche software development (e.g. NASA/JPL coding projects with special rules, practices, MISRA etc) can look like that. 99.9% of the time though, software "engineering" is an ad hoc, mix and match, semi-random, always changing requirements and environments, half-art half-guess, process, by unlicensed practicioners, that is only regulated at some minor aspects of its operation (like GDPR, or accessibility requirements), if that.
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    By that definition the vast majority of historic engineers weren't "real" engineers. It's correct to claim that software engineering isn't currently an accredited profession and it's also quite reasonable to question the extent to which the vast majority of software development qualifies as the practice of engineering. But the latter is highly subjective and will likely also rule out a significant fraction of the grunt work that accredited engineers perform. Which is to say, engineer the job title is distinct from engineering the activity is distinct from engineer the accreditation.
analog31 6mo ago
Engineers are accredited in the US too. But there is an "industrial exemption" that allows you to work as an engineer without a license for certain kinds of employers. You just can't offer engineering services to the public without a license. This is more important in some fields than in others. Where I work, there are plenty of non licensed engineers, but we pay a 3rd party agency for regulatory approval. The people who work for that agency are licensed engineers. Their expertise is knowing the regulations backwards and forwards. Here's what I think is happening within industry. More and more work done by people with engineering job titles consists of organizing and arranging things, fitting things together, troubleshooting, dealing with vendors, etc. The reason is the complexity of products. As the number of "things" in a product increases by O(n), the number of relationships increases by O(n^2), so the majority of work has to do with relationships. A small fraction of engineers engages in traditional quantitative engineering. In my observation, the average age of those people is around 60, with a few in their 70s.
School-Cotton 6mo ago
The concept of engineer predates the accreditation systems you’re referring to by centuries.
gombosg 6mo ago
I started my career as a machine designer (mechanical engineering), designing some machines for FMCG factories. It wasn't that much different from SWE - mostly looking up catalogs, connecting certain pre-made pieces together with custom parts and lots of testing of the final plan to make sure there are no collisions and every movement is constrained properly. 95% of the time no load or sizing calculations were necessary - we just oversized everything based on tacit knowledge (the greybeards reviewing the plans) since these machines were not mass produced and choosing somewhat bigger parts was not expensive given that these machines would operate and produce value 24/7 for years. (I hope the analogy to software engineering is visible!) What I'm saying is that the level of "engineering rigor" heavily depends on the field where engineers are operating within. Even certain SWE fields (healthcare, finance, aviation etc.) have more regulation and require more rigor than others.

jjtheblunt 6mo ago

i think you accidentally overlooked accredited engineers who happen to be writing software

Jcampuzano2 6mo ago
Of course there are engineers who write software, I'm just speaking about the majority of roles where thats not the case.

lkmill 6mo ago

as an actual engineer i just feel sad. i should probably feel happy but i like solving problems. fml i have becomea luddite.

therealdrag0 6mo ago
I get it. But there’s plenty of engineering to do in any serious system. I am in a very AI forward company using AI for everything, but I still am solving engineering problems every day.

keeda 6mo ago

> ... nobody in the field of "Software Engineering" is actually an Engineer if we go by a strict definitions. This is a pet peeve of mine, so while I understand what you mean, I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering! And since I've had this discussion before, I'll pre-emptively hazard a guess that the argument boils down to "rigor", and point out that a) economic feasibility is a key part of engineering, b) the level of rigor applied to any project is a function of economics, and c) the economics of software projects is a very wide range. Put another way, statistically most devs work on projects where the blast radius of failure is some minor inconvenience to like, 5 users. We really don't need rigor there, so I can see where you're coming from. But on the other extreme like aviation software, an appropriately extreme level of rigor is applied.

Jcampuzano2 6mo ago
I don't really disagree with you. I was just pointing out how the parent mentioned how "engineering" is changing when it already has changed many many times. Of course I want the best of the best who are top notch and rigorously trained working on mission critical software.
2OEH8eoCRo0 6mo ago
It's a pet peeve because the truth hurts. We (most of us) aren't doing anything that resembles engineering.
- keeda 6mo ago
  I'd agree that applies to people, or more accurately specific projects, but not the discipline of software engineering as a whole. Even most of the projects I personally have worked on simply did not need "engineering" as such, but other projects where uptime was critical and the cost of failure was high, there was a much higher level of rigor.
coldtea 6mo ago
>I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering! "Structured, mature, legally enforced, physically grounded standards based approach to the construction of repeatable, reliable, verifiable, artifacts under stable (to the degree that matters) external constraints". Some niche software development (e.g. NASA/JPL coding projects with special rules, practices, MISRA etc) can look like that. 99.9% of the time though, software "engineering" is an ad hoc, mix and match, semi-random, always changing requirements and environments, half-art half-guess, process, by unlicensed practicioners, that is only regulated at some minor aspects of its operation (like GDPR, or accessibility requirements), if that.
- fc417fc802 6mo ago
  By that definition the vast majority of historic engineers weren't "real" engineers. It's correct to claim that software engineering isn't currently an accredited profession and it's also quite reasonable to question the extent to which the vast majority of software development qualifies as the practice of engineering. But the latter is highly subjective and will likely also rule out a significant fraction of the grunt work that accredited engineers perform. Which is to say, engineer the job title is distinct from engineering the activity is distinct from engineer the accreditation.

analog31 6mo ago

Engineers are accredited in the US too. But there is an "industrial exemption" that allows you to work as an engineer without a license for certain kinds of employers. You just can't offer engineering services to the public without a license. This is more important in some fields than in others. Where I work, there are plenty of non licensed engineers, but we pay a 3rd party agency for regulatory approval. The people who work for that agency are licensed engineers. Their expertise is knowing the regulations backwards and forwards. Here's what I think is happening within industry. More and more work done by people with engineering job titles consists of organizing and arranging things, fitting things together, troubleshooting, dealing with vendors, etc. The reason is the complexity of products. As the number of "things" in a product increases by O(n), the number of relationships increases by O(n^2), so the majority of work has to do with relationships. A small fraction of engineers engages in traditional quantitative engineering. In my observation, the average age of those people is around 60, with a few in their 70s.

School-Cotton 6mo ago

The concept of engineer predates the accreditation systems you’re referring to by centuries.

gombosg 6mo ago

I started my career as a machine designer (mechanical engineering), designing some machines for FMCG factories. It wasn't that much different from SWE - mostly looking up catalogs, connecting certain pre-made pieces together with custom parts and lots of testing of the final plan to make sure there are no collisions and every movement is constrained properly. 95% of the time no load or sizing calculations were necessary - we just oversized everything based on tacit knowledge (the greybeards reviewing the plans) since these machines were not mass produced and choosing somewhat bigger parts was not expensive given that these machines would operate and produce value 24/7 for years. (I hope the analogy to software engineering is visible!) What I'm saying is that the level of "engineering rigor" heavily depends on the field where engineers are operating within. Even certain SWE fields (healthcare, finance, aviation etc.) have more regulation and require more rigor than others.