I understand why "real" engineers balk at the idea of calling software developers engineers. It's because traditional engineering has a litmus test of hard sci

I understand why "real" engineers balk at the idea of calling software developers engineers. It's because traditional engineering has a litmus test of hard science that one must master to be even become an entry level engineer. I mean you can't just go out and start claiming that you're a mechanical engineer to get a junior position, you have to have mastered some pretty heavy math concepts, and our educational system is pretty good at verifying a baseline for such hard knowledge. But software engineering is still a thing, despite its differences. It does a disservice to pretend that software engineering is somehow not as difficult a technical discipline simply because it has a low barrier to entry and credentials are a dubious proxy for any appreciable skill in the discipline. The reason programmers deserve to be called engineers is because software, especially large systems are as merciless in their cause and effect as the real world. Just as a civil engineer has to master the physics to make a bridge stand up, software engineers have to deal with the unforgiving nature of the logic engine and all the abstraction layers built on top of it. But unlike physics which never changes, the hardware and software substrate that programmers work with is constantly in flux. All of it is layers upon layers of predicate logic concocted from the minds of other programmers. It is as if the very rules of the physical universe were themselves variable and invented by other engineers. Given this kind of environment, and also the diverse applications to which software can be applied (any thought as opposed to any physical object), it's no wonder that software engineering does not have agreed upon branches and standard academic credentials.