4 ms·

> For one, the industry never did professionalize to begin with, certainly not in the way accountants, lawyers etc did. "Professionalize" is an interesting way

> For one, the industry never did professionalize to begin with, certainly not in the way accountants, lawyers etc did. "Professionalize" is an interesting way to frame this. As Milton Friedman argued, occupational licensure is almost always pursued by the practitioners rather than consumers. The licensing boards are mostly run by practicing lawyers and CPAs, so you have practicing lawyers and CPAs determining who can compete with them. So what you get are cartel-like bodies. Most people don't know the histories of how these professions came to be what they are today in the US. If you take 15 minutes to read up on it, it leaves little doubt what the intentions are and how much consumers have been screwed. > We never had any real body that could certify proficiency, which is what contributed to companies having to resort to leetcode and other such styles of interviewing. Except that basically everyone in the industry knows that leetcode doesn't test real-world proficiency. It's equally dubious to believe that some sort of body (ostensibly run by practicing software developers) would be able to come up with a means to certify proficiency. Incidentally, many of the outfits "looking to cash in on students looking to get a 6-figure job" placed a heavy emphasis on teaching their students how to interview, not how to be proficient.

sgarland 2mo ago
I, for one, am extremely happy that electricians and plumbers have to be licensed.
- hattmall 2mo ago
  Sure, but are you happy about the requirements of that licensing? Requirements that have continually expanded to require more "experience" over the years. I know in my state it was originally 1 year of experience or completion of a tech diploma and then you had to take the licensing exam. Now it is 5 years of experience and a diploma can count for one of those years. Which of course has pushed prices to insane levels. Are you happy that the license is much less a license to do the work and much more of a license to hire unlicensed people to do all the work. And lastly are you happy that private equity can "hire" the licensed professional to hire 100s more unlicensed people to run a huge company with a catchy slogan?
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 2mo ago
    These are valid things to be unhappy about and should be corrected. But if the implication is 'licensing has issues so we'd be better off without' then I'm not on board. It reads like one of those 'if we can't have a 100% perfect solution, then we should do nothing' arguments. Licensing does have merits and I think currently they outweigh the drawbacks. If we can make licensing better by fixing some issues, then absolutely let's do that.
  - tedd4u 2mo ago
    What would you propose as an alternative? Some concerns I have are: 1) my house not burning down due to electrical fire and 2) not exploding due to natural gas leak.
breezybottom 2mo ago
Milton Friedman was a libertarian crank. I'm a consumer and I'm quite happy that doctors and lawyers are licensed.
- win311fwg 2mo ago
  What advantage do you, the consumer, see to licensing over certification?
  - nullsanity 2mo ago
    [dead]
  - fauchletenerum 2mo ago
    Liability for the professional that knows if they botch a job in horrendous fashion that they could lose the ability to continue practicing their profession.
    - win311fwg 2mo ago
      What's the practical difference between that and certificate revocation? Maybe you can still technically do the job, but who is going to work with you when you are not certified? But it's not certain you would even be able to continue to do the job if you botched things in a horrendous fashion. There is precedent for individuals being barred from working in certain industries if it is considered necessary to protect the public, even when those industries are unlicensed. Granted, it is rare and a lot more complicated than where licenses are found, but if you've botched things in a horrendous fashion anything is possible.
- wyclif 2mo ago
  Au contraire, mon frere. Milton Friedman looks prophetic in 2026, especially his book "Free to Choose."
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  You can have a regime that regulates who can practice medicine and law without having it run through private organizations that function like a cartel.
joshdavham 2mo ago
> It's equally dubious to believe that some sort of body (ostensibly run by practicing software developers) would be able to come up with a means to certify proficiency. I very much mostly agree with you, but I did take the Google Cloud Associate exam a year and a half ago and honestly it felt like a pretty rigorous exam. I definitely could not have passed that exam if I was incompetent in my knowledge of cloud and IT. Exams like these, I think, might become more mainstream in certifying developers in my opinion. (Though whether this is desirable is another question.)
- ElProlactin 2mo ago
  The question is whether you then want there to be a legal licensing requirement that requires an individual to hold certification to work as a software developer.
  - dijit 2mo ago
    Maybe treat it like other professions and have a specific title be protected?
    - blu3pr1n7 2mo ago
      Is it really possible to do that? I think if we were to go down this avenue we would need to consider titles other than software engineer.
      - dijit 2mo ago
        yes, it's possible. That's why there's no Software "Engineers" without degrees in Quebec.
        blu3pr1n7 2mo ago
        Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. The engineering requirements to be a competent software engineer in HFT a Genomics vary wildly. If completing a computer science degree and maybe a Msc in computer science is the answer fair enough, but I don’t think those credentials are enough to label someone a competent Software Engineer. What could be a generic framework? Do you have any reference to standards?
sleepycat801 2mo ago
Companies don't care about proficiency, the only qualities which matter are ambition, presentation, flexibility, and marketability. Customers and investors buy a good story, not a functional product.

sgarland 2mo ago

I, for one, am extremely happy that electricians and plumbers have to be licensed.

hattmall 2mo ago
Sure, but are you happy about the requirements of that licensing? Requirements that have continually expanded to require more "experience" over the years. I know in my state it was originally 1 year of experience or completion of a tech diploma and then you had to take the licensing exam. Now it is 5 years of experience and a diploma can count for one of those years. Which of course has pushed prices to insane levels. Are you happy that the license is much less a license to do the work and much more of a license to hire unlicensed people to do all the work. And lastly are you happy that private equity can "hire" the licensed professional to hire 100s more unlicensed people to run a huge company with a catchy slogan?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2mo ago
  These are valid things to be unhappy about and should be corrected. But if the implication is 'licensing has issues so we'd be better off without' then I'm not on board. It reads like one of those 'if we can't have a 100% perfect solution, then we should do nothing' arguments. Licensing does have merits and I think currently they outweigh the drawbacks. If we can make licensing better by fixing some issues, then absolutely let's do that.
- tedd4u 2mo ago
  What would you propose as an alternative? Some concerns I have are: 1) my house not burning down due to electrical fire and 2) not exploding due to natural gas leak.

breezybottom 2mo ago

Milton Friedman was a libertarian crank. I'm a consumer and I'm quite happy that doctors and lawyers are licensed.

win311fwg 2mo ago
What advantage do you, the consumer, see to licensing over certification?
- nullsanity 2mo ago
  [dead]
- fauchletenerum 2mo ago
  Liability for the professional that knows if they botch a job in horrendous fashion that they could lose the ability to continue practicing their profession.
  - win311fwg 2mo ago
    What's the practical difference between that and certificate revocation? Maybe you can still technically do the job, but who is going to work with you when you are not certified? But it's not certain you would even be able to continue to do the job if you botched things in a horrendous fashion. There is precedent for individuals being barred from working in certain industries if it is considered necessary to protect the public, even when those industries are unlicensed. Granted, it is rare and a lot more complicated than where licenses are found, but if you've botched things in a horrendous fashion anything is possible.
wyclif 2mo ago
Au contraire, mon frere. Milton Friedman looks prophetic in 2026, especially his book "Free to Choose."
ElProlactin 2mo ago
You can have a regime that regulates who can practice medicine and law without having it run through private organizations that function like a cartel.

joshdavham 2mo ago

> It's equally dubious to believe that some sort of body (ostensibly run by practicing software developers) would be able to come up with a means to certify proficiency. I very much mostly agree with you, but I did take the Google Cloud Associate exam a year and a half ago and honestly it felt like a pretty rigorous exam. I definitely could not have passed that exam if I was incompetent in my knowledge of cloud and IT. Exams like these, I think, might become more mainstream in certifying developers in my opinion. (Though whether this is desirable is another question.)

ElProlactin 2mo ago
The question is whether you then want there to be a legal licensing requirement that requires an individual to hold certification to work as a software developer.
- dijit 2mo ago
  Maybe treat it like other professions and have a specific title be protected?
  - blu3pr1n7 2mo ago
    Is it really possible to do that? I think if we were to go down this avenue we would need to consider titles other than software engineer.
    - dijit 2mo ago
      yes, it's possible. That's why there's no Software "Engineers" without degrees in Quebec.
      - blu3pr1n7 2mo ago
        Maybe I wasn’t clear enough. The engineering requirements to be a competent software engineer in HFT a Genomics vary wildly. If completing a computer science degree and maybe a Msc in computer science is the answer fair enough, but I don’t think those credentials are enough to label someone a competent Software Engineer. What could be a generic framework? Do you have any reference to standards?

sleepycat801 2mo ago

Companies don't care about proficiency, the only qualities which matter are ambition, presentation, flexibility, and marketability. Customers and investors buy a good story, not a functional product.