3 ms·

Wait, so this has already been passed, and it's a real thing? I wonder how quickly it's catching on and who requires them.

cbhl 13y ago
> Only those whose programs might “endanger the public health or safety, security, property, or the economy will need to be tested,” continues Thornton. It's perfectly sensible to introduce this when Software Engineers will be working alongside people who are also licensed and accredited. So, software engineers in safety-critical fields -- writing firmware medical devices, or shutdown routines for nuclear power plants, or pacemaker firmware -- would definitely benefit from this. Whether software engineers working on consumer-grade electronics need something like this is more hazy (Pebble smartwatch firmware? Probably not. But what about the people writing the iOS app for a diabetic's glucose blood monitor? Hmm.) I'm under the impression that Software Engineering has been licensed by certain local engineering bodies for at least a few years now (Professional Engineers Ontario comes to mind), so this is nothing new. Not going for the accreditation won't harm your chances of being hired by a Google or Facebook, nor will it prevent you from starting your own company.
- vajrabum 13y ago
  There's nothing "sensible" about asking any computer scientist to pass the fundementals of engineering exam. That has aboslutely nothing to do with anything in the computer science curriculum.
  - cbhl 13y ago
    If the software you write controls a pacemaker, I would want you to be able to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam. If you're writing routines for SolidWorks, or AutoCAD, I would want you to be able to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam. If your program will be used by Civil Engineers to figure out the composition of soil that needs to be placed under a brick pathway that students like me will use every day, I would want you to be able to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam. If you're going to be the next Mark Zuckerburg, I give negative fucks about whether you have an engineering degree. Go take a speech communication course.

cbhl 13y ago

> Only those whose programs might “endanger the public health or safety, security, property, or the economy will need to be tested,” continues Thornton. It's perfectly sensible to introduce this when Software Engineers will be working alongside people who are also licensed and accredited. So, software engineers in safety-critical fields -- writing firmware medical devices, or shutdown routines for nuclear power plants, or pacemaker firmware -- would definitely benefit from this. Whether software engineers working on consumer-grade electronics need something like this is more hazy (Pebble smartwatch firmware? Probably not. But what about the people writing the iOS app for a diabetic's glucose blood monitor? Hmm.) I'm under the impression that Software Engineering has been licensed by certain local engineering bodies for at least a few years now (Professional Engineers Ontario comes to mind), so this is nothing new. Not going for the accreditation won't harm your chances of being hired by a Google or Facebook, nor will it prevent you from starting your own company.

vajrabum 13y ago
There's nothing "sensible" about asking any computer scientist to pass the fundementals of engineering exam. That has aboslutely nothing to do with anything in the computer science curriculum.
- cbhl 13y ago
  If the software you write controls a pacemaker, I would want you to be able to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam. If you're writing routines for SolidWorks, or AutoCAD, I would want you to be able to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam. If your program will be used by Civil Engineers to figure out the composition of soil that needs to be placed under a brick pathway that students like me will use every day, I would want you to be able to pass the fundamentals of engineering exam. If you're going to be the next Mark Zuckerburg, I give negative fucks about whether you have an engineering degree. Go take a speech communication course.