4 ms·
I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't become a supply control mechanism that has onerous BS requirements like "X years experience with a licensed union tradesme
by noonespecial 13y ago
I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't become a supply control mechanism that has onerous BS requirements like "X years experience with a licensed union tradesmen". Software is notorious for the "1 year of experience repeated 10 times" problem. Theses tests should be about pure aptitude.
Warning: If certification becomes more about permission than proficiency, you'll get corruption instead of competence.
- joshAg 13y agoSpoiler alert: it does. According to the article, it's another sub-specialty of the PE license. here's the california website for getting a PE license: http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/ http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/
- penrod 13y agoWell of course it's a supply control mechanism. That's a whole point of a guild. It's also an IEEE money-minting mechanism, a state licensing board revenue-generating mechanism, and a small-company and freelancer screwing mechanism. (Large companies are exempted from the screwing, of course.) "Most software engineers, including those who work for a government entity or large company, won’t be affected by the licensure requirement"
- mitchty 13y agoWell the rent seekers are coming apparently, as much gain as I see coming from this I also see a lot of malaise from it. "I'm only doing what the best practices say I should." Sounds somewhat like a cya mechanism akin to what architects do. Along the lines of sprinklers every N feet, walls have to be buttressed no longer than N feet and with Y giant bolts etc...