Career Advice: Don't Call Yourself a Programmer

Ian Lamont writes "Patrick McKenzie has written about the do's and don't's of working as a software engineer, and some solid (and often amusing) advice on how to get ahead. One of the first pieces of advice: 'Don't call yourself a programmer: "Programmer" sounds like "anomalously high-cost peon who types some mumbo-jumbo into some other mumbo-jumbo." If you call yourself a programmer, someone is already working on a way to get you fired.' Although he runs his own company, he is a cold realist about the possibilities for new college grads in the startup world: 'The high-percentage outcome is you work really hard for the next couple of years, fail ingloriously, and then be jobless and looking to get into another startup.'"

Comments

But ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'm self employed, and even though my boss is jerk he's not going to fire me because I call myself a programmer.

Re:But ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And me too! I used to work for other people, but got tired of the instability in the 'work for hire' work world. They need you for something, you get hired, you solve the problem they have been staring at for 6 months, you attempt to help in other ways once all the fires they throw at you are out, they get nervous about you as 'an outsider' interfering with the business, and the software engineers God intended for the company (the ones who couldn't put out the fires they handed to you) and so suddenly there you are with the collective 'they' handing you your hat, once again unemployed. I've even worked for places where, after you are gone, the regulars still can't handle the fire situation, and within one or two months, they are once again looking for a fireman. So I finally started up my own. Its a lot more work than work-for-hire, and even after things were built and running, the money was less, but it was steady, and growing. Early on, there wasn't enough to put bread on the table, but you keep it going and do work for hire. You start out with 1.25 times the income of straight work-for-hire (and about 1 1/2 times the work). Once it gets to about 1.75 times the income of work-for-hire, its time to bail on work-for-hire, and from that point on, your life belongs to you.

Re:But ...

[Midnight Thunder]

I think programmer is still a fine title. In all reality titles for software developers are so varied and vague, that as long as I am getting my pay cheque, I am quite happy to be called a 'Senior Code Monkey'. At that point I am also happy to treat my boss as 'Manager Monkey' and the CEO as 'Chief Baboon'. ;)

Re:But ...

[LucidBeast]

I'm a programer, porgrammar, programmar, damn it, I'm a coder and I write code

Re:But ...

[rally2xs]

You're life doesn't belong to you if you're working 1.5X as much time as you used to, which was likely in excess of 8 hours anyway. 12 hours a day for some means too tired to do things like go to the gym, have a social / sex life, etc. If you live to work, that's one thing, but most of the rest of us work to live, and probably should learn something like welding or electrician that 1) can't be outsourced and 2) is usually no more than 8 hrs a day 5 days a week.

Makes sense

[rsilvergun]

If it's one thing America's taught me it's that doing useful work is the worst way to earn money around these parts.

Re:Makes sense

[SharkLaser]

Well, programming practically is the computer-world equivalent of construction worker or cleaners. Sure, it's useful so people actually can get things done, but it isn't practically challenging or something lots of people can't do if given teaching. Developers have to make the important decisions regarding a product. If you wanted to work in the gaming industry, would you rather want to be a coder or actually the game designer?

Re:Makes sense

[Surt]

Programming has one advantage over construction workers: it's mind-numbing indoor work. Most people cannot stand it. That's the real hurdle keeping people out of the industry.

Re:Makes sense

[etymxris]

Programming seems easy to you and me, but you would be surprised at how many people just cannot do it no matter how much training you give them. Anyone can clean, most people can do construction. Maybe 1 in 10 people could program if they really wanted to, and only 1 in 10 of those will actually want to.

Re:Makes sense

[Lemmy Caution]

Are you saying you are the 1%?

Re:Makes sense

[Dr_Barnowl]

Exactly ; they've done studies that prove this - not everyone can program a computer. Every time I see one of those GUI programming environments designed to enable users to program, I sigh. Real programmers detest them (unless they are a mile-high model overview and they fill in the gaps), and people who can't program still can't program, so implementing them is pointless and counter-productive.

If 30-60% of people who self-selected to go on a Computer Science course can't program, what's the percentage in the general population?

Re:Makes sense

[CodeBuster]

Programming seems easy to you and me, but you would be surprised at how many people just cannot do it no matter how much training you give them.

Please mod parent up. This is exactly right. All of my experience, both in school and now working as a software developer, confirms this.

Re:Makes sense

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Interestingly, spreadsheets does make non-programmers program, to some degree. Someday, I will understand why that is.

Re:Makes sense

[Arancaytar]

25%, I believe.

Re:Makes sense

[Surt]

But if you are saying half of all people can be programmers, that's not much more of a hurdle than construction. Maybe less because construction does have significant physical requirements.

Re:Makes sense

[sourcerror]

I can tell you that you haven't graduated yet, and you're just parroting back the things your heard from your professor.

Re:Makes sense

[Stormthirst]

By programming a spreadsheet, do you mean fill in a bunch of formulas and perhaps record some macros to take the repetition out of their work?

Re:Makes sense

[Spugglefink]

Anyone can clean, most people can do construction.

I don't think I'd go that far at all. Most people who try to do construction walk around with a hammer all day feeling so special that they're helping to build something, but they aren't accomplishing anything useful, and just need to get out of the way.

Just like most people who try to volunteer at software projects, actually.

Re:Makes sense

[Synerg1y]

There are also tiers of programmers, some of the poor fucks we've hired didn't know how to work w SQL parameters (HS knowledge for me when parameters in sql were new and great). Seriously though, article has a point, if I have to refer to that hat, I refer to it by "engineer", or "computer engineer" depending on who I'm talking to. Technically I'm a sys admin though, no go there either. Try meeting girls and say "I do programming | webdesign | code for a living" and watch the light go out of their eyes. Most definitely don't know what a sys admin is.

Just imagine the learning curve to learning programming for people who don't know what a sys admin is. Then again I can totally emphasize with "who cares" too.

Re:Makes sense

[Synerg1y]

You can build your muscles a lot faster than you can your mind. Back to the manhole for you!

Re:Makes sense

[anonymov]

Well, filling in a bunch of formulas IS a form of dataflow programming.

It is easy for non-programmers because it quite closely maps real-world calculations on a sheet of paper to the computer screen - just fill in the initial values and write down formulas without worrying about operations ordering. VisiCalc and those who polished the concept after them did a pretty nice job.

On a side note, Visicalc authors' notes make for quite an interesting read.

Re:Makes sense

[A nonymous Coward]

One of my bosses discovered he could weed out most "software engineer" candidates by giving them a simple recursive programming task. It was amazing the number of candidates who could write your standard simple recipe-style program, but were baffled at the idea of recursiveness, or even nested data, pointers to pointers and arrays of arrays and simple combinations.

So yes, programming has divisions like all other activities: people who can build a bird house but not a people house, or can change spark plugs but not an engine.

Re:Makes sense

[Dahamma]

That and when some crazy laid off tech worker burns down the building over his red stapler. Plus, who doesn't want to bring their lunch in a pail?

Re:Makes sense

[Sponge Bath]

A posting about muscles and manholes in response to a statement about physical requirements... is this slashdot or craigslist personals?

Re:Makes sense

[gman003]

If you wanted to work in the gaming industry, would you rather want to be a coder or actually the game designer?

Bad analogy there. Game designers are about as far from programming as possible. You see plenty of game designer/level designer people or game designer/storywriters, you see some game designer/artist people (particularly in Japan), and you even see some game designer/musician people. I can't name of the top of my head a single game designer/programmer who isn't an indie developer (where everyone is a bit of everything, really).

Re:Makes sense

[SharkLaser]

John Carmack?

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually most people can't clean at least not in a professional and structured way. Even fewer can do construction work. Programming may be a bit more exclusive in that it requires a certain type of thinking to be successful at it that may or may not be more rare than the personality/thinking traits needed for the other two professions but don't be fooled into thinking programming is harder to accomplish successfully. Most jobs require a certain set of mental traits and some require physical traits as well. The combination of those pre-requisite traits with training is what makes someone successful and it is almost never that in born talent is a key contributor to general success (though over the top success it may contribute more significantly to). What makes programming worth more is the fact that the training is harder to come by not that the innate traits are harder to come by.

Re:Makes sense

[BasilBrush]

There are also tiers of programmers, some of the poor fucks we've hired didn't know how to work w SQL parameters

I've worked as a software engineer for years, and I wouldn't know that either. If I was told I had to work with that sort of thing I'd probably kill myself first.

Technically I'm a sys admin though

Ah, well, that explains it.

Re:Makes sense

[BasilBrush]

My favourite interview involved a real world analogy to public key encryption. I think that would weed out 99% of the ones who understand recursion.

Re:Makes sense

[BasilBrush]

And the significance of that is what? Two dimensional arrays don't involve recursion. N-dimensional array involve recursion.

Re:Makes sense

[Idaho]

Probably, and indeed that is (a basic form of) programming. And yet I believe most people could not do even that if their live depended on it. If someone bothered to do the research, I think they'd find that the majority of people who even have a remote idea of how to use a computer (know how to read mail and how to click links on "the internet") are not actually able to create an Excel spreadsheet with a column A that lists some items, a column B that lists prices for said items, and then stick a SUM(B1:Bxx) in there somewhere, say. At least, not without prior extensive instructions on how to do exactly that one trivial task, of course.

Re:Makes sense

[BasilBrush]

Carmack is a programmer. He doesn't design the games. He comes up with some new engine technique, and then the designers make a game out of it.

Re:Makes sense

[A nonymous Coward]

This is only significant if you are the dumbest programmer ever, since that would then prove that anyone can learn two dimensional arrays. Congratulations!

Re:Makes sense

[nomadic]

A problem with programmers in general is they tend to be very poor at self-evaluation. Just like most people think they're better-than-average drivers, most programmers think they're better-than-average programmers.

Re:Makes sense

[stephanruby]

Exactly ; they've done studies [codinghorror.com] that prove this...

If that study proves anything, it's that most (if not all) Computer Science academics are not effective teachers.

Personally, I would have used the same technique I used to teach my nephews about multiplication to teach those same Computer Science flunkies about operator assignment. I'd make my own boxes (or I'd use some cubby holes) to represent the variables and I'd use some nuts to represent the values to put into each.

And not only that, but I'd verify that each student actually understood my metaphorical demonstration by asking them to explain a couple of lines of code back to me using those same objects (different lines of code so the students can't copy each other). And then, I would do enough spot-checking to make sure that the students had retained that understanding the following day, the following week, the following month, and until the very end of my course (after all, if there is no repetition, there is usually no learning).

Obviously, this is not what Computer Science Professors do, and if any of them tried to do what I'd suggest, that might even possibly get them into trouble it's so counter to the existing culture instilled in Computer Science departments (it also runs counter to the way they're being incentivized). There is just no hand-holding in Computer Science. Its high degree of difficulty is not considered a flaw, it's considered a badge of honor. In a way, that difficulty is also a misguided survival mechanism, after all there are so many kids wanting to get into computer science all because they've been playing computer games most of their childhood (and they're under the naive assumption that programming a computer game will be as easy playing one, which couldn't be farther from the truth of course). Most Computer Science departments feel the need to make sure those students get weeded out early, that's already how they see themselves as, not just as teachers, but as gatekeepers that make sure that the new influx of modern lazy kids are weeded out early.

Re:Makes sense

[LucidBeast]

So you what you are saying is that 50% of people know how to program?

Re:Makes sense

[stephanruby]

He probably is. After all, it doesn't matter what subject it is, but most people think they're above average. And it wouldn't be much of a stretch to think that 50% of the population also think they're part of that top 1 or 2%.

Re:Makes sense

[gman003]

Nope. He's never really done any of the game design. He's probably one of the best programmers on the planet, but the game design was always someone else - Romero, or Hall, or American, or Peterson, or whoever they have at the moment.

Re:Makes sense

[mrchaotica]

You know, that's the thing that's always pissed me off about spreadsheets: you have to operate on a particular range of cells, which means you have to know beforehand how large the range is. Why can't I program my spreadsheet to just SUM(B) (or SUM(B1:the last occupied cell in B))?!

I guess it's because that concept would be too hard for all the spreadsheet-using non-programmers...

Re:Makes sense

[shentino]

If they DO understand recursion why would you want to weed them OUT?

Re:Makes sense

[BasilBrush]

Because it isn't nearly enough. We studied recursion in high school, and I already knew all about it before that class. That's not a high enough bar for me to hire a software engineer. It's something they should understand in order to start a CS degree. A software engineer who's highest attainment is understanding recursion is an amateur.

I wouldn't require them to understand public key cryptography, but I'd expect them to be able to work through it with me in an question and answer session.

Re:Makes sense

[etymxris]

Well I used to think programming was something everyone could do. Experience has proven me wrong again and again. Some people think of themselves as exceptional. I do not. I think of myself as average or middling. When it comes to "ability to program" though, most people cannot come close to middling.

Re:Makes sense

[Isaac Remuant]

What?

A) It can be practically challenging depending on what is it you want to implement. It can be easy to implement crappy software but thar would be the same for every industry, if you suck at what you do, you're going to be one of the million.

B) People can do it if given teaching? Sure, but somehow, they don't get taught or they don't follow through with their education or they're just not interested in learning that.

C) Your last question kills me. I LOVE programming, I wouldn't rather be a game designer than a programmer. Not at all. I'd enjoy having game design decisions as I implemented the code but would hate to abandon the coding part. Then again, you talk about a crappy industry with crappy pay, crappy hours and lots of exploitation. Most likely, I wouldn't work in the game industry altogether.

Re:Makes sense

[CodeBuster]

most (if not all) Computer Science academics are not effective teachers.

The lower division undergraduate CS courses are generally taught by lecturers and not tenured research professors at most universities. The lecturers ought to be good at teaching the basics, including programming, and at my school they were actually quite good. The basic truth is that not everyone is cut out for programming and without programming one cannot fully explore and experiment, both essential activities in any study of CS. That is why intro to programming is generally the very first or among the very first CS courses taken by incoming freshman undergraduates. It separates the wheat from the chaff and in so doing does everyone a service. Those who are unable to program discover that CS isn't the right thing for them and move on to pursue something else while those who are willing and able get a taste of what lies ahead in their studies so that they too can decide whether or not they want to continue with the major and make progress towards a degree.

Most Computer Science departments feel the need to make sure those students get weeded out early, that's already how they see themselves as, not just as teachers, but as gatekeepers that make sure that the new influx of modern lazy kids are weeded out early.

Perhaps this isn't such a bad thing? Does everyone with even just a passing interest in computers, programming and the like have to study CS in college? What's wrong with limiting the major to serious students only? They do the same sorts of things in other engineering and science majors. Serious majors always feature weeder courses to separate the interested and the serious from the dabblers. The dabblers can spend their time studying the liberal arts, humanities, social science or the classics. The scientists and engineers don't have as much patience for those sorts of students (you know the type, starry eyed idealists looking to "find themselves" in college).

Re:Makes sense

[RCL]

Well, programming practically is the computer-world equivalent of construction worker or cleaners. Sure, it's useful so people actually can get things done, but it isn't practically challenging or something lots of people can't do if given teaching. Developers have to make the important decisions regarding a product. If you wanted to work in the gaming industry, would you rather want to be a coder or actually the game designer?

Being game programmer is much more fun than being a game designer. Most "important decisions" boil down to balancing and scenario =) Stuff like gameplay mechanics (weapon design and AI behavior) is proposed and basically decided by programmers who permanently experiment with code, designers do influence that, but they have to account for what's technically possible and it's programmers who say "this cannot be done in reasonable time" :)

To sum up, the more you understand, the more power you have. Programmers can and often do understand game designer's job, but not vice versa - so programmers can both design and implement stuff, but game designers can only design =) They are valued for having more consumer-oriented mindset than programmers, if not for that, they would be just glorified testers.

Re:Makes sense

[Opportunist]

Sadly, what the GP says is what most of management thinks. Just how many of us think that it's trivial to come up with the harebrained ideas we get to hear from management, making us think any monkey could come up with that crap.

Re:Makes sense

[Galestar]

you can. you create a named range.

Re:Makes sense

[Compaqt]

In a way, I think you just restated the points made by the parent: college courses aren't meant for the dissemination of knowledge, but rather a "game"--being deliberately obtuse as a way to play with the freshmen.

Basically, they'll allow to you program if you already know how to program.

I can relate in how hard it was for me to wrap my head around the idea of object-oriented programming, until a great book (I think it was Thinking in C++) layed it out quite simply and without being deliberately obtuse.

I think the guy's idea about boxes and nickels is great, and the world isn't going to collapse if a few "normal" people are allowed to learn how to program a computer to do what they want it to do.

Re:Makes sense

[anomaly256]

Every other week I'm required to work with concepts and frameworks and languages and technologies I hadn't yet experienced in my prior 20 years engineering/programming/coding/whatever. A quick RTFM, a google, and a juryrig testbench script later and I'm up to speed. I think that last bit, is the bit that bites most people who are the kind of people not cut out for programming. They can't abstract the problem and apply their existing knowledge to it in order to understand it in the first place. They just aren't wired like that. On the other hand, I'm sure they can all dance to some degree. I however can not. I'm not wired like that.

Re:Makes sense

[tibman]

Discovering recursion changed the way i looked at life.

Re:Makes sense

[fyngyrz]

Don't be too hard on m. parent; their life is obviously chaos.

Re:Makes sense

[fyngyrz]

some of the poor fucks we've hired didn't know how to work w SQL parameters

If a real programmer was hired whose experience didn't include this, tell 'em to look over the version of SQL you're using and they'll know them well enough -- and where to look for details -- ten minutes later. No programmer knows every language right off the hook, and SQL itself isn't exactly groundbreaking, so there's no reason to pay any attention to it (and the DB concepts that support and depend upon it) at all until you have DB work to deal with. Real programmers actually do have a thing or two of "other" nature to deal with in their careers, ya know. :P I might not have known SQL at one point, but on the other hand, I could tell you every 6809 instruction, addressing mode, the timings, the condition code consequences of the instruction, how every interrupt worked... that's what you needed to know for real programming in the environment I was working in. It's all relative. Also, I know SQL now -- but I've had 40 years to run into the various dark corners of programming.

Re:Makes sense

[mrchaotica]

Well, your suggestion wasn't the solution I wanted, but it did lead me to the actual solution:

=SUM(OFFSET(A1,1,0,COUNTA(A1:A65536)-1,1))

Now, how do I refer to all of column A? The "$A:$A" syntax I've found doesn't work in Libreoffice...

Re:Makes sense

[mrchaotica]

I'm using Openoffice (actually Libreoffice) -- the "B:B" syntax doesn't exist.

Re:Makes sense

[kmoser]

Only 1 in 10 of those will be any good at it.

Re:Makes sense

[Lemmy Caution]

It's a skill based on a temperament + practice. You should neither diminish the reality of the skill nor think of yourself as a genius simply for having it (and recognize, also, that others have skills that may be just as unrealistic for you to attain.)

It's good to realize that not everyone could do it. It makes you more compassionate when you consider the difficulties some people have when their skills are, at the moment, less needed in the labor market.

Re:Makes sense

[Ritchie70]

I have asked the following questions of supposedly experienced C/Unix programmers and gotten no sensible answer:

Tell me what * (star, or asterisk) does in C. (Answer: multiplication.) OK, well, what other than multiplication?

Tell me what the static keyword means inside a function. Global to a file?

Tell me about some types of interprocess communications.

I dream of recursion being a filter.

Re:Makes sense

[smart_ass]

I work at a software company and while I respect and appreciate all the programmers, I can assure you 1 or 2 in 10 would be suitable for construction work.

Sorry, but in many cases it is a question of aptitudes more than one task being more difficult than another.

Myself I am slightly above mediocre at both.

Re:Makes sense

[SharkLaser]

And that's why OpenOffice/Libreoffice sucks. It doesn't support what most people use.

Re:Makes sense

[schwitzkroko]

rotfl I dont know what he is, but you are most probably among the 90% majority.

Re:Makes sense

[hism]

I disagree. Anybody who can grasp university level mathematics can be trained to program. Programming is nothing more than formalizing what you want to do into a language. If you can formalize a problem into the language of mathematics, then programming is just a matter of learning syntax. Maybe they don't immediately comprehend the latest posh programming paradigm or trend, but given a little bit of time, they can program. The way I see it, the math behind programming is orders of magnitude more involved and complex than programming itself. Programming is just a method to manifest those ideas.

Re:Makes sense

[rally2xs]

And 1 huge disadvantage: Construction can't be outsourced.

Re:Makes sense

[Bengie]

"I can relate in how hard it was for me to wrap my head around the idea of object-oriented programming"

I had a similar thing for me. Most "intro" OO books/tutors dumbed it down so much that I couldn't figure out wtf they were talking about. I eventually found an intermediate C++ book that explained how objects were just structs with methods/functions/etc that run relative to them, then it just clicked.

It was so stupidly simple.

I understand how CPUs/Memory/OSs work, so when I learn what's happening on the back end, it makes it so much easier for me to understand what to do on the front end.

I had the same problem with marshalling calls to the GUI thread. I got so confused with all the tutors. I eventually found an MSDN article on how the GUI thread works. One page of technical info and theory taught me so much better than tens of pages of dumbed down tutors and code examples.

By the time I got to multi-threading, thread pools, and async callbacks, I eventually learned to just google how they work before looking for tutorials. At least these things came naturally.

I can't learn when a tutor says "do it this way" without explaining "Why" and explaining "How" things work in the background. I don't like "black boxes" that magically do stuff.

I seem to learn quite differently from most people.

Re:Makes sense

[Bengie]

I think I know where Synerg1y was coming from.

I see web programmers all the time who don't know about SQL paramterized inputs. Even though they are not SQL programmers, they need to know the basics since most web sites are consumers of DB data. It's like hiring a server admin who doesn't know anything about hard drives and memory.

While "you" may have had to learn SQL as an additional language at some point, that wasn't your specialty. A web programmer *should* know their specialty, and that includes properly securing a web page.

Re:Makes sense

[Surt]

Sure, but the construction projects can, and are.

Re:Makes sense

[fyngyrz]

"web programmer"?

What is that, like calling the individual who washes your car a "dirt mechanic"? lol

Network facing security includes far more than cleansing user inputs; you hire someone as one-dimensional as "web programmer" seems to imply, and I don't think you've much chance at any reasonable level of security. Unless I very much misunderstand what you're trying to describe with the terminology you're using, which could be the case. I've never heard of a "web programmer", and I've been at this since punch cards were all the rage.

Re:Makes sense

[Synerg1y]

Right... kind of, the IT term is web developer and it encompasses a wide range of skills. Your analogy is total fail btw. Almost sounds like you look down on web developers and come from a networking background. So let me ask you this, when port 80 is passing traffic for your web server on your network and somebody passes a sql injection attack wtf do you? exactly, cry in your corner. So while clean user inputs (which have nothing to do with parameters btw but more with typecasting), are not everything there is to securing an application, it's quite essential I assure you.

Still, lmfao what is a web programmer indeed.

http://www.google.com/search?q=web+programmer

Re:Makes sense

[Surt]

I don't find it mind numbing, but most people do. Seriously, get out of your basement, and talk to a small sample of non-software-developers.

Re:Makes sense

[Geminii]

"It's simple," you say, "we'll just start with recursion
Recursing away so recursively looped.
Then throw in recursively nested arrays
Of arrays of arrays in self-referenced groups.

And projecting these vectors selected respectively
Gives us the index detected en route
To these pointers to pointers to sixteen-dimensional
Structures we'll have your code simply compute.

Now when your cross-referenced, cross-platform hypercode
Threads are recached in a microchip core
Can you tell how the business third quarter's affected?
Speak now - you've a one-minute window, no more."

Re:Makes sense

[Dr_Barnowl]

Yeah.. I think of that as a bug or missing feature in Calc - it's the one thing I sincerely miss when I'm using Calc instead of Excel. I only use Excel for trivial things, really, and summing columns features prominently.

As a sibling points out, it's probably the most used feature of Excel, so not supporting it is really annoying.

I'm inspired to trudge over to the OpenOffice bug tracker and see if it's ever been logged...

Re:Makes sense

[PeterWone]

Like me, you are a "reductionist" thinking in terms of mechanism; you want the junk removed so you can discern essential principles.

meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry what you call yourself. Do good work and people will want to work with you.

Re:meh

[Farmer Tim]

Hi, I'm the new Arch-clown of Pandemonium. Where's my desk?

Re:meh

[Surt]

You laugh, but that was very close to someone's actual title at Blizzard (we picked our own titles). He got recruited away. Why? He was really good at his job.

Re:meh

[Farmer Tim]

You laugh

Yes, it helps delay the inevitable soda bottle and balloon animal rampage.

but that was very close to someone's actual title at Blizzard (we picked our own titles). He got recruited away. Why? He was really good at his job.

It's possible the recruiter knew this about Blizzard and consequently ignored the title. I believe is the point of the article is that doesn't happen too often.

Re:meh

[Surt]

My point is the article is wrong. You can really call yourself whatever you want in this day and age. Recruiters are all keyword searching in linkedin. They don't care if your selected title is programmmer, software engineer, developer, or lord of darkness. They care if you matched for the skills they are looking to hire, and if your resume makes it clear you're a good hire.

Re:meh

[Synerg1y]

And you are completely right sir.

Re:meh

[BasilBrush]

It happens all the time. In a lifetime of software engineering, I've picked my own job title for everything but the first couple of years. At some point you get an email saying they're going to do some business cards for you, and asking what job title you want on them.

Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[Mean Variance]

In casual conversation among people who wouldn't know the nuances of the various "programmer"-like terms, I do say, "I'm a programmer." It gets the point across simply that most people understand.

If I'm in a semi-professional setting of white collar adults, I usually say "software developer."

On a resume or among those who know the industry standard, I say "I'm a software engineer" because that's my title.

If it's tied to a conversation that might have career potential, I give the true classification at work: senior software engineer.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[hey]

Maybe need a new word: programineer.
You are a senior programineer!

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[kbrannen]

I completely agree that the context and audience of the conversation will strongly influence what I call myself. If I had mod points you'd get some here.

There's a lot of good advice in the article, but the "don't call yourself a programmer" point was not a good one, IMO.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[musicalmicah]

I just say, "I make software." Yes, it's vague, but so is my job -- one day I am fixing a bug, another day I'm ironing out requirements, another day I'm writing tests, but all of it is to support one goal: to make software.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[emilper]

scarce

they want us to fix their windowses

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[cyberstealth1024]

I agree with parent and grandparent. mod them up!

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[JWSmythe]

    Be careful, I'm pretty sure Disney already trademarked that one.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[JWSmythe]

    If you go any farther than "I make software", their eyes glaze over anyways.

    For over a decade, I've held high level IT positions, including responsibilities in management, systems administration, network administration, and software development. My current title is "Director of Information Technology". When someone asks what I do, I just say "computer stuff". I elaborate a little bit at a time, until I understand what level they're at. In most social circles, "computer stuff" is all they need to know, or can comprehend.

      To many of them "IT" is the group that consists of the guy who comes to their desk to fix problems. The whole department, regardless of what they're doing, is considered "that guy who fixes my computer when it breaks." Ya, the lowest rank and responsibility in my department, and that's all anyone understands it to be. .. that's not to imply that the desktop support job is crap. That just happens to be the lowest position in my department. :) I have a lot of sympathy, since I have done it, and executives always seem to think that I should help them with their desktop problems, even if it's that they accidentally turned off their power strip, and the computer won't turn on. Sometimes I wonder how some people manage to survive at home. They don't appear to have the skills to work a light switch, or change a lightbulb. I don't quite understand how they make themselves coffee in the morning without burning their house down.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[Haedrian]

That happened to me. Someone asked me what I do and I answered "Software Developer". A few weeks he described my job to someone else as "IT technician".

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[canoeberry]

"Programmer" was good enough for Brian Kernighan, so it's definitely good enough for me. If I were Dennis Ritchie I'd call myself a computer scientist, but I've met Dennis Ritchie and I'm no Dennis Ritchie. However, I can still program computers way better than most and that's good enough for me.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[Some Bitch]

hey man i probably made more while you commuted to work this month than you made all year. or, if you're unemployed, I made what you eat in three months in two hours yesterday morning.

And with this little rant you more or less made his point :)

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[omfgnosis]

In casual conversation among people who wouldn't know the nuances of the various "programmer"-like terms, I do say, "I'm a programmer." It gets the point across simply that most people understand.

I've had to train myself never to use the term "web developer", because more often than not the next thing I hear is along the lines of "so you design web pages?" I've also had to train myself not to feel insulted when that happens.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[HBI]

I agree entirely. "Computer stuff" is adequate for most people, including my parents AND the girlfriend AND my children. It's depressing at one level but vastly simplifies things at many others.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[TrekkieGod]

That happened to me. Someone asked me what I do and I answered "Software Developer". A few weeks he described my job to someone else as "IT technician".

I encountered that myself, and was incredibly surprised by it.

I'm an electrical engineer, and whenever people asked me what I do, I got tired of answering EE and then explaining to them that I can't fix the bad wiring in their house because EE doesn't mean "electrician." So, I started answering "software developer" to that question, since that's a more accurate definition of my job anyway (I write engineering simulation software). I was pretty surprised to find out that people will interpret that either as IT admin or IT help desk.

I've since realized you can't win. My economist friends keep having to explain to people that they are not accountants. I think there are very few professions out there that are unambiguous. "I do computer stuff," sounds about right for a proper answer for what we do.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[Larryish]

"Programmer" among the non-computer-literate is a general term meaning "the person who can make my VCR stop flashing 12:00".

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[JWSmythe]

    For kids, it does make perfect sense. My dad was an engineer. When I was a little kid, I was sure he drove a train. :) By the time I was a teenager, I understood what he really did.

Re:Depends on why I'm referring to my profession

[omfgnosis]

Hopefully you were successful at "training" yourself.

I don't know why you need to use scare quotes. Do you never have to train yourself? It must be nice being perfect.

The problem is that most people less capable than you AS WELL AS more capable than you probably assume they're both the same thing, since really, they are pretty close.

For whatever it's worth, it's exclusively non-techie people who react that way.

HTML, Perl, etc. - just a spectrum.

Well, for one... hardly. There's a world of difference between document markup and even the most basic, procedural logic specification. Second, the comment is always used to mean "design the graphics that appear on my screen", which doesn't even arrive at markup; it's from people who, not knowing at all how the innernets work, just assume someone somewhere starts in Photoshop and exports Google.

You could correct them to say "I design the backside of web pages

That wouldn't necessarily be entirely correct—I also design the interactive portions of the frontside of web pages. Usually I correct them to say, "yes, I do some design work, but mostly I'm a programmer", which isn't entirely correct and doesn't entirely convey my work, but that's all most people care about or are interested in understanding. If they want to know more, I go on from there. The point was that, outside a tech background, my usual experience is that people hear "web _______" and assume... well, Photoshop.

Such sage advice...

[The Living Fractal]

Because, you know, the 1000+ currently open job postings for keyword "programmer" on Monster.com are just a perfect example of situations where people are already looking to fire you. After all, that's why they created the posting, just so they could waste company resources and fire someone.

/sarcasm

Re:Such sage advice...

[snowgirl]

Because, you know, the 1000+ currently open job postings for keyword "programmer" on Monster.com are just a perfect example of situations where people are already looking to fire you. After all, that's why they created the posting, just so they could waste company resources and fire someone. /sarcasm

Sarcasm and all, this is the rantings of a single person at a single company, about his own personal view of the topic. I could probably find someone who would tell you that using the Oxford comma is likely to get you fired, and due to some forms of projection (the assumption that you are "typical", and you model everyone in the world based on yourself) they will assume that it's the prevalent opinion.

Re:Such sage advice...

[The Living Fractal]

Agreed - my initial evaluation of this 'story' was it is someone's personal experience that they are projecting as general truth.

Re:Such sage advice...

[AchilleTalon]

Who is Patrick's boss so I can get him fired?

Re:Such sage advice...

[Lemmy Caution]

That's not inconsistent with the idea that a programmer is expensive commodity labor, a cost that needs to be managed, rather than a member of the "inner circle" of those who are intended to have a long-term investment in the business.

Re:Such sage advice...

[tomhudson]

No kidding. Consider this "gem"^Wlump of coal:

(Quick sidenote: You can absolutely ignore outsourcing as a career threat if you read the rest of this guide.) Nobody ever outsources Profit Centers.

Profit centers are outsourced all the time. "We're making $X by producing it locally, but we can make $5X by outsourcing."

Or this:

In the real world, picking up a new language takes a few weeks of effort and after 6 to 12 months nobody will ever notice you havenâ(TM)t been doing that one for your entire career.

Obviously the type of guy who would say "C? No problem. Memory leaks? No problem." Then leak all over the place.

Re:Such sage advice...

[Trepidity]

In particular, he does mostly consulting, and from his descriptions, it sounds like mostly for clueless people who aren't going to evaluate the technical quality of the deliverable (or even know what technical quality looks like). That's a real market niche, and a fairly large one, but it's hardly generalizable to all tech jobs. If you're interviewing for embedded systems development, and your attitude is "I can learn C in 6 weeks" and you want to talk more about providing return on value than about your technical skills, you probably aren't going to get the job.

Re:Such sage advice...

[tomhudson]

That would depend on how skilled a programmer he is. If he is skilled, that should not happen.

I know it's a shocking thing to do, but I actually read the article. He only wrote about managed languages. If all you ever learned was managed languages that didn't need you to deal with memory allocation, pointers, etc., good luck.

Re:Such sage advice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, some of those ads on Monster.com (or Dice.com, or Careerbuilder.com, etc.) are actually fake job listing by some agencies just to collect resumes, or they posted and the job is real but are fully intending to hire an H1-B employee instead.

Re:Such sage advice...

[Anonymous Coward]

The poster obviously doesn't understand the difference between a profit center and a cost center. The widget makers are too busy making widgets to get them into the customers' hands in exchange for money. Yes, yes, the sales people can't sell widgets without widget makers making some (well, they'll try. The successful ones are called con artists) but those could be widgets made by anybody. That's why the widget makers are not profit centers, and why companies outsource their widget making but not their sales department.

Re:Such sage advice...

[tomhudson]

I call BS.

The poster obviously doesn't understand the difference between a profit center and a cost center. The widget makers are too busy making widgets to get them into the customers' hands in exchange for money. Yes, yes, the sales people can't sell widgets without widget makers making some (well, they'll try. The successful ones are called con artists) but those could be widgets made by anybody. That's why the widget makers are not profit centers, and why companies outsource their widget making but not their sales department.

Companies outsource both sales and marketing all the time. From hiring boiler rooms of telemarketers to Madison Avenue ad companies, it's been done for decades.

Re:Such sage advice...

[tomhudson]

Hm. I've actually never seen a profit center outsourced -- the risk isn't worth it, typically.

Willfully blind? Profit centers are outsourced all the time. Ever see a captive spin-off? Or a division sold for cash plus a percentage of shares? You know, like IBM did with their PC biz? Or GM with EDS in 1996?

As to the language thing: he's right. Maybe *you* need more than 12 months of professional experience to master a language, but *I* don't, and my better coworkers don't, either.

Most languages you can get the basics in a day or two. However, you certainly cannot "master" c in under 6 months. Call back when you're able to write non-trivial c programs such as servers without leaking memory and then we'll talk, because obviously you can't.

Re:Such sage advice...

[shentino]

So putting postings at recruiting sites are just bait to honeypot disgruntled workers you want to shed off the payroll by catching them accessing the internet on company time?

Re:Such sage advice...

[CAIMLAS]

Personally, I'm opposed to hiring idiots in the first place. Forget hiring them! By not hiring them, it saves valuable time and money spent firing them which could be better spent finding reliable people who are competent and capable.

Maybe this guy should've concentrated on those job skills.

Re:Such sage advice...

[Bengie]

If you "don't worry" about memory allocation/deallocation with "managed languages", then you're doing it wrong. If you want to be good at programming managed languages, then you need to understand how the framework handles allocation/deallocation and the best way to take advantage of that fact.

Software Engineer

[RPGillespie]

Well, to me, "software engineer" sounds even more high cost than "programmer", since it implies college education.

Re:Software Engineer

[ifiwereasculptor]

Why don't they just call themselves "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS"? I heard the ones that do are pretty well-off.

Re:Software Engineer

[Lemmy Caution]

The difference - and it is entirely in perception, yes - is that a "programmer" is a kind of intellectual brute-worker, while a "software engineer" has a conceptual understanding of the specific problem that makes a long-term relationship with the business more important; that they "own" the projects in which they are involved. So while the "software engineer" may cost more, they are treated as part of the business, while the "programmer" is really hired help.

I agree that this is all perception, intuitions about the valences of different terms. It also reflects the fact that business culture in America has been about creating an "inside" and an "outside," between those with some kind of ownership (metaphorically speaking, partially, though equity is involved) in the business, and those who are kept at arm's length to be removed as quickly as possible. Part of the problem is that the first group is getting smaller and richer, and the second group getting bigger, less stable, and generally poorer.

Re:Software Engineer

[Anne Thwacks]

Because of the risk from incoming chairs!

Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[sichbo]

In Canada, it's illegal to practice engineering, or call yourself one, without a engineers license. There's nothing worse than retards who get a college degree in programming and start calling themselves "engineers". It's an insult to every actual certified engineer in the world.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Hentes]

What about programmers with a Computer Engineering degree?

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[carpefishus]

A continuum of Ludicrous: Certified Engineer - No Ludicrousiness Software Engineer Sanitation Engineer - Full On Ludicrousiness

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[FooAtWFU]

There's nothing worse than retards who get a college degree in programming and start calling themselves "engineers".

I work with these machines - design them, refine them. You could, with just the slightest hint of fancy, refer to them "difference engines". I am an Engine-er. Welcome to the English language; I suggest that you save yourself some grief and just deal with it.

(Of course you need a license to do something useful in Canada. Woo flippin' hoo. Canadian industry is all about the incumbent industries protecting themselves from competition through regulatory capture. That's also part of why you have such sucky telecom services that you're always complaining about.)

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is something worse: retards who consider a government blessing as a some sort of indicator of one's ability to get shit done.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[RichMan]

In Canada the degree does not matter. No one, no matter what qualifations can call themseleves and engineer unless they are a professional engineer.

To be a professional engineer they must be a member of their provincial professional engineering association. This is roughly equivalent toa US lawyer being a member of the bar for a particular US state. The idea is that "Engineers" are professionals and to call yourself one you must be a member of the professional assiation.

What is a professional engineer (Ontario Professional Engineers Organization)-> http://www.peo.on.ca/registration/LR.html

Most civil and a high percentage of those who graduate from mechanical engineering do become professional engineers. It gets you the official STAMP which is used to mark building and machine documents. Most electrical engineering college graduates do not. Those who work in power engineering do. In Canada the main reason to become a professional engineer is to get your stamp. If your job requires you to stamp designs then you will get your professional engineering membership.

Very few software projects get engineering stamps. The link above also discusses the seal.

http://www.ccpe.ca/e/index.cfm

 

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[tomhudson]

Unless you're licensed as an engineer, you cannot call yourself a software engineer, not even in Texas. See section 1001.004.c.2.c

Only a person licensed under this chapter may make any professional use of the term "Engineer"

Many states have similar provisions. If you see someone calling themselves a "software engineer", but they aren't licensed by the state as an engineer, report them, they are engaging in fraud. Microsoft got nailed and had to change their courses from MCSE for exactly this reason.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Rostin]

Licensure in the US is handled by the individual states, and the rules and enforcement can be murky and inconsistent. I have a degree in the one of the traditional areas of engineering, but I am not licensed. I was told in college that in my state, my employer is allowed to refer to me internally as an engineer, but I can't represent myself that way to others (e.g. on my business cards) as an engineer unless I'm a for-real P.E. I'm honestly not sure where the line is, though. It could be a matter of fact that my job title is "Engineer II". If I put that on my resume, am I breaking the law, or is it fine so long as it's sufficiently clear that I'm not claiming to be licensed? Here's an old article from 2003 specifically about this issue in Texas. I'm not sure how it turned out, but it looks like a mess.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Surt]

We resist this strongly in the US because of the history of people promoting themselves to 'lord' and then demanding the right to tax you and such. So we don't let anyone set claim to a title, though in a few cases we restrict your right to both name yourself something and actually practice at the same time. So you can call yourself a psychologist if you want, as long as you don't make money doing anything remotely resembling therapy.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[fliptout]

I believe there is an exception to the rule in Texas, where if you work for a company that does manufacturing, you get a pass for calling yourself an engineer. It agitates me to no end seeing people barely qualified to do anything technical take the title of engineer.

-from a software engineer in TX with PE license.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Mr Z]

For this reason, I've thought about taking the PE and registering. (I live in Texas.) But, it's been 15 years since I graduated with my BSEE, so it'd take some serious studying to refresh myself on all the calculus and such that I don't use every day. (I still remember all my Calc I pretty well. Calc II, Calc III, DiffEq, Advanced Statistics... not so much.)

My business cards have never said "engineer" either. Where I work, the rule seems to be "Take whatever title you would have put engineer after, and just omit 'engineer'." So, back when I was considered a DSP software applications engineer, my business card simply said: "DSP Software Applications". These days, I get to use the title "Architect," which doesn't have the legal baggage. Yay me.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's illegal to practice engineering"

It's illegal for someone to solve problems without an engineering license?

All an engineer is, is someone who applies logic and science to solve a problem.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[slyborg]

One of the (few) things that I still am glad about in working in the software field is the absence of retards brandishing some kind of government-issued license and feeling this entitles them to some kind of respect. You're judged on your skills and knowledge *as demonstrated* in this business. If this offends you, you're definitely in the wrong place, since I'd bet 95% of the people on /. have no form of professional licensure.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Arlet]

Depends on where you're from. In some countries, a degree at a technical university will allow you to call yourself an 'engineer', even including a special engineer title you can put in front/behind of your name.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Lemmy Caution]

This is made complicated by the fact that "software engineering" is a widely understood and accepted practice, with an extensive discourse going back to the 1960s, and has as much to do with organizational issues, workflow etc. as it does with architecture, design and programming. I understand that this is causing some contestation over the term in Canada. In some sense, you can have a group of system architects, developers/programmers etc. all working together doing software engineering without a single "engineer" among them.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect you're mistaken. The title "Professional Engineer" is, in the US, only permitted to be used by those people who have completed the difficult set of exams and earned the appropriate experience as required by the licensing state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#United_States). Relatively few people that study and have an engineering career become PEs because of the long and difficult exams that are required for the license, and also because most organizations only need a handful of PEs to certify the work done by a group of engineers.

Furthermore, by your standard, my wife, who has a B.S. in mechanical engineering, is no more an engineer than I am with my software engineering master's degree and computer science undergraduate.

Engineering concepts can be applied to software just the same as any "traditional" engineering discipline. The only difference is that engineers learn some sort of applied phyics, while software engineers focus more on logic, mathematics, etc. I'm a software engineer, so piss off.

Anyway, what do non-licensed engineers in Canada call themselves? I suspect they still call themselves engineers.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Seumas]

That's great, but the definition of an engineer is a person who builds, designs, or maintains things like engines, machines, (software), etc. If you build, design, or maintain those things, you are by definition an engineer and no union or guild or association that wants to represent you, dictate to you, and fish some dues out of your bank account every month changes that.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[hjf]

Except I wouldn't like to use a bridge designed by an self-called "engineer", exploting the english etymology.

Because in non-english speaking countries, the roles of architect (the one who designs) and engineer (the one who makes the real-life calculations) are very clear. An architect can design a 100-story building, but he needs an engineer to do all the calculations (or check them). It's what we call "sign the blueprints".

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[hjf]

Do you wonder why the software world is loaded with bugs? Oh yes, the hipster "I'm good at what I do" metodology. "Software experts" that have never had any formal training (and find themselves reinventing the wheel every day).

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[nonsequitor]

What about a Bachelor of Science in Applied Sciences from the Engineering College at my University? Don't I get to call myself a software engineer? I don't call myself a Professional Engineer, but neither do other recent engineering grads and they have engineer in their titles. It takes several years work experience and an exam to become a PE in the states, and once you get it, you can put it after your name like PhD. I know plenty of mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers who are not PE's.

In my opinion, the difference between programming and software engineering is the approach. Software Engineering is a discipline; it involves requirements, design, verification & validation of functionality, etc. Programming is just writing code.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[aztracker1]

I think the larger issue is using the term "Engineer" with software. You typically do not engineer a software project. I prefer the term developer, or architect since they are more apt to fit into a typical software development structure.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Dahamma]

Pretending that a certificate somehow makes you better is the real joke. I don't know anyone in computer or electrical engineering who bothered getting a "certificate".

I guess that's why they have had to settle for EE/CS jobs at second rate companies like Intel, nVidia, Apple, Oracle, Marvell, Broadcom, Google, or any of the others here in Silicon Valley that could give a shit about a piece of paper issued from bureaucrats over intelligence and motivation...

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Dahamma]

Absolutely. That's why such a large proportion of high tech innovation has come from the US in this century - no one cares about titles, it's all about results. Hell, a lot of the most successful high tech entrepreneurs never finished their degrees anyway, let alone bother with a useless "engineering license".

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Do you wonder why the software world is loaded with bugs?

Not really. I know why it is often loaded with bugs. It often has to do with the price tag associated with quality and the time it takes to achieve it.
So instead of going for quality software, the customers will take cheap and early delivery.

Btw, there is nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel. Man has been doing that since they invented the wheel, otherwise we would still have stone wheels.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[shoemakc]

For those outside of the US, while the terms "Engineer" and "Architect" are not legally protected in the United States, the terms "Professional Engineer" (PE) and "Registered Architect" (RA) most certainly are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_engineer

So sure, call yourself an Engineer if you want, but calling yourself a PE or RA in the US without having a license in good standing is grounds for being sued.

-Chris

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Mr. Shotgun]

In Canada, it's illegal to practice engineering, or call yourself one, without a engineers license. There's nothing worse than retards who get a college degree in programming and start calling themselves "engineers". It's an insult to every actual certified engineer in the world.

Actually, the distinction is not as cut and dry as you would like to think. Most countries, including Canada, have restrictions in regards to who can use the title Professional Engineer. The Professional Engineer designation usually connotes a degree of legal responsibility when they execute their duties.

However the use of the word "Engineer" in a position name or title is not as well defined legally. For instance in the US there is the notion of Industrial exemptions, where certain engineering positions do not require licensure because the product is sold across the country, or existing legal avenues for compensation of a faulty product are considered antiquate. Furthermore, in your country of Canada, the decisions regarding the use of the word Engineer in a title are varied across provincial lines, for instance some cases from Alberta, two of which it was ruled that the persons use of the word engineer was not liable to confuse the public or cause the public harm. Only in Quebec and Ontario is the word "Engineer" regulated, not just "Professional Engineer" via the Engineers act.

Obligatory IANAL,IANYL, IANAE, IANASE, ILB

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Toonol]

Sadly, I think this will change over the next few decades. There are types of employees that love to put up artificial barriers to competition. Whether it's engineers, architects, or hair dressers, the established workers love certification schemes. It'll drive more work offshore, of course.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[BasilBrush]

Sounds like protectionism. I have sympathy with the idea that you need a certain qualification to call yourself an engineer. I have no sympathy for the idea that you need to join a club to call yourself one.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[w_dragon]

Look up 'stationary engineer'. It's a factory position, requires a 2-year college program, and the people who do it can call themselves engineers without a P.Eng in Canada. Also I do know people doing software that requires P.Eng, mostly industrial-control type stuff. There are also routes to a P.Eng if you have a degree that isn't in applied sciences, so long as it's fairly close (science or math generally), and you're willing to jump through some interesting paperwork hoops.

Despite what they tell you in school, engineering in Canada, and the P.Eng designation in particular, isn't limited to the ivory tower few.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[stephanruby]

Is Canada more like the UK by any chance? I don't know if they call software developers engineers in the UK, but they do label almost everybody who deals with machinery some kind of engineer: a train operator, a car mechanic, an elevator repairman, a factory worker, a janitor, etc. To them, they're all engineers.

So if you're not the software kind, what kind of engineer are you? Do you happen to be a train engineer by any chance?

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[jonbryce]

In the UK, the British Computer Society, or it might be called the Chartered Institute of IT, is a member of the Engineering Council, so if you pass their exams, you have engineer status.

Having said that, the call centre monkeys on first line support at my ISP call themselves "support engineers", and that is perfectly legal.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Surt]

Nope, you'll get in trouble with the law if you do. You can offer those services, or you can call yourself a psychologist, but if you do both you are going to jail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist#United_States_and_Canada

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[msobkow]

And what, precisely, does a stamp for marking building and machine documents have to do with programming?

Obtaining the right to call yourself an engineer in Canada tells you absolutely NOTHING about their programming skills.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[PowerVegetable]

"Retards" with college degrees who call themselves engineers are only breaking a rule in countries (like Canada) where "engineer" is a protected term. For countries (like the US) where engineer just means "someone who has training and responsibility in an engineering role", you're being a pompous ass. Your title does not make you a better problem solver.

I know a few senior retired chemical engineers that don't have college degrees in engineering, because they got their start in an apprentice program years and years ago. They did good work as engineers and problem solvers, and the lack of a cert labeling them as officially-minted and approved by the ABCDEF certification board doesn't make them any less qualified.

A trade group camping on a title and claiming legal ownership of it doesn't make them better at their job. And for what it's worth, train operators have a legit claim on the phrase "engineer" that predates any of our modern professions.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Mr Z]

Hmmm.... then maybe I'd be OK. I solve complex technical problems at work almost daily, sometimes mathematic, but most often logistical, or what you might call "heavily derived", where you have to pull details from several disciplines to make sense of everything. Maybe I'd be OK. Hmmm....

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[RealityChk1]

My (little 27,000 empolyee) corporation calls me a "Principal System Engineer". So, I guess I R one. At least thats what it say in my signature block. And engkneers can't spll neither.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[metarox]

Not in the province of Quebec, you can't call yourself engineer or pretend your are one. If caught you will be fined.

http://www.peo.on.ca/enforcement/Quebec_MS_April2004.pdf

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[mjwalshe]

no no - the only thing you should allow the architect to do is chose the paint color's.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[hjf]

An architect is someone who's not man enough to be an engineer, and not gay enough to be an interior decorator.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Dixie_Flatline]

Augh. It's not protectionism, it's a designation that brings with it certain legal rights and RESPONSIBILITIES. From the link which you CLEARLY didn't read:

"Affixing the seal on documents and drawings indicates the documents and drawings are final for the intended purpose and have been prepared by or under the supervision of a person licensed to practise professional engineering who is assuming responsibility for them. By sealing documents and drawings, licence holders acknowledge that they assume professional responsibility for the design, opinions, judgments or directions given in the documents and drawings. The seal is a "mark of reliance," indicating that a licence holder attests that other people can rely on the information provided in the documents and drawings."

You're not 'joining a club', you're being certified by an organisation that has the expertise to know whether or not you're qualified to handle that sort of responsibility.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Dixie_Flatline]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The article basically claims you should call yourself an 'engineer' instead of a 'programmer'. These comments are (correctly) pointing out that you shouldn't be calling yourself an engineer unless you actually HOLD that designation. It's misleading at best, and outright illegal at worst.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[skovnymfe]

The names are pretty easy if you consider that they're just a slightly skewed version of every other profession, mainly due to outsourcing. For example, indians/chinese guys are programmers. Then you have what other professions call lab assistants, interns and wage slaves. They're now software engineers. Then you have what other professions would call an engineer, which is a software architect. And I can't remember what the last title comparison is.. Damn. Oh, and on an unrelated note, computer science is a research line, not an actual programming line. It may involve programming, but it's a wholly different kind of programming than what most wage slaves are capable of. That's why the golden rule when hiring CS grads is not letting them touch a keyboard for the first few years, until they've actually learned how to program.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[BasilBrush]

There was no link. There was a URL, but no link. And no I didn't read it. It's hardly the only trade club in the world.

Qualifications are what is required to "know whether you are qualified". The clue is in the name.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[thetoadwarrior]

Sounds retarded if you have to join a club to be a 'proper' engineer.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Bengie]

Not optimizing your design from the beginning is another cause of having to re-write everything or shipping a sub-quality product.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[Lemmy Caution]

Government contracts, government research grants and protectionism did.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[hjf]

re-write everything? what are you using? perl?

ever heard of modularity? refactoring? no?

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[SomeStupidNickName12]

Hi Canada, I would like to introduce you to the rest of the world where right or wrong this is standard practice. Calling the rest of the world retards makes you come across as a fool.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[swalve]

Are you sure? Engineer and Professional Engineer are two different titles.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[swalve]

What do IBM CEs call themselves in these states?

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[swalve]

Pretty wide definition of "man". Engineers follow orders, architects give the orders. I wouldn't want to be in a building designed by an engineer. "Why do we need 8 foot ceilings??! Nobody is 8 feet tall!" You'll have event spaces with 7.5 foot ceiling, and everyone would go insane. The only good news would be that there would probably be plenty of outlets.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[swalve]

And worse than that are retards who believe such things, but then spend millions to get elected to said government.

That is EXACTLY what a government is supposed to be doing. The citizens get together and decide what the rules are for society and how to enforce them. If the citizens decide that only people with certain qualifications can call themselves $JOBTITLE, then that's perfectly fair.

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[swalve]

Offshore hair dressers?

Re:Programmer != Engineer, idiot.

[PerfectionLost]

That's why I call myself a Computer Scientist. That and I know mostly Physics and Chemistry Scientists, and it pisses them off to no end that they got the PHD and I did not. If I knew more Engineers of any sort I'd probably call myself a Computer Engineer though.

Everybody is an engineer?

[babblesaurus]

. . . and 'real' engineers everywhere weep. Obviously every case may be unique, but calling yourself one thing which has a set of implications does sort of slander professionals in the field whose titles you are trying to snag.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[FooAtWFU]

. . . and 'real' engineers everywhere weep. Obviously every case may be unique, but calling yourself one thing which has a set of implications does sort of slander professionals in the field whose titles you are trying to snag.

I agree 100%! As we all know, real engineers drive trains.

chugga chugga chugga chugga choo chooooo!

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[rbrander]

No. Real Engineers are held responsible for their mistakes, like doctors. They go to jail if the building falls and kills somebody.
This has never happened with a software "engineer". That's the difference.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[The Living Fractal]

Or to take it even further, back in the 1300s when an engineer was someone who operated military 'engines' - aka machines like catapults.

And let's not forget the Army Corps of Engineers.

Point being, if someone goes to school to learn how to mix chemicals together and then comes out angry that other people are calling themselves engineers, too, but without the schooling, then maybe that someone should go BACK to school and learn some history.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Arlet]

Of course, when you learn to design a building, they teach you how you can calculate whether the building is strong enough. There are methods and tools for that purpose.

For software, there are no tools or methods that you can use to determine if a program has some fatal bugs. You're on your own, and usually with a tight deadline and no budget.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to Formal Verification!

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[rbrander]

If you think structural engineering is not done on deadlines and budgets, you're kidding yourself.

But your main point is mostly correct - real software engineering is HARD. One of my courses was about applying mathematical proof methods to programs and proving them correct. It was HARD. Exponentially so for more-complex programs.

However, it *is* done, mostly in EE with control systems. Medical equipment, phone exchanges , aircraft control - anything where people die if there's a failure and the maker gets sued for it - is done to engineering standards. That is, it costs 10x as much per line of code. Boeing's software guys I have no problem calling "Engineers"; but of course, most of them already were before they added programming totheir skills.

All software could be done to such standards, but we don't want to pay for that , so we endure some bugs instead. Less in some places than others, though - banks have very few software errors.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Arlet]

If you think structural engineering is not done on deadlines and budgets, you're kidding yourself.

No, I meant that in the case of software development, a thorough verification (as far as that's possible) would take 10x as much time and budget as is available in most cases. And mathematical proof only works if you have a 100% correct specification.

In structural engineering, at least the deadline and budget allow for an acceptable verification.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Chris Mattern]

For software, there are no tools or methods that you can use to determine if a program has some fatal bugs.

Yes there are. It's just that nobody's willing to put in the time an expense to use them.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[hjf]

I was going to give you a long explaination, but paraphrasing you will suffice:

Point being, if someone goes to school to learn how to fix people and then comes out angry that other people are calling themselves doctors, too, but without the schooling, then maybe that someone should go BACK to school and learn some history.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Chris Mattern]

That's not true. It's true that formal verification can't prove the program "does what I want" if you screw up specifying what you want, and it's very possible to do so. But formal verification *does* allow you to make blanket guarantees about the program behavior, like "This program will not ever crash and dump core," "This program will never take more than X clock cycles to update the display," "This program will never overflow a buffer" and the like, and such guarantees are very valuable and impossible to deliver without the verification.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Arlet]

They also only work in a small subset of problems, and only if you have formal specification that you can compare against. For most problems there is no formal spec, because writing one would be similar in complexity as writing the program.

Seriously, 30 man-years for verifying 7500 lines of code? That's just not practical. And how can we be sure that the verification process itself is correct ?

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Arlet]

Your last example isn't even correct. For 'n' large enough, the factorial function will overflow the number representation, or run out of memory.

It's also necessary to formally prove the compiler and libraries.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Micklat]

It's true that formal verification can't prove the program "does what I want" if you screw up specifying what you want

Which is exactly my point. For any sufficiently interesting problem, specifying what you want in a 100% perfect way is impossible.

In addition, there's no formal way to prove that two programs produce the same output (that would be equivalent to solving the Halting Problem), and as a consequence there's no general way to prove that a program is equivalent to the specification.

You overstate the theorem. Determining whether or not two programs produce the same output is undecidable. That doesn't mean that given two non-trivial programs, you can never prove that they produce the same output (rather, it means that there's no algorithm that can receive the representation of the programs and determine in finite time and without mistakes whether or not they have the same output).

So, where does this put us? To get safety and correctness guarantees about programs, we need not write algorithms that prove correctness about any program provided to them. Rather, we need to write proofs concerning the particular program that we wrote - and it helps if we wrote our program in certain ways that make those proofs easier to develop. This is certainly possible.

You might counter that certain correct programs have no correctness proof. This is true only in a superficial way. A program may have correct behaviour, but if its author cannot write a correctness proof for it - even an informal one - then that means the program isn't understood by its own author, and should be fixed. Good code has correctness proofs, even if they're informal and only in the author's head.

I must make one exception to this rule, however. In AI code, there are sometimes heuristics that have no proof, not even an informal one, because the author doesn't have more than an intuition about why the heuristic should work. But that's a small minority of the total amount of code being written.

Of course, like you said, parts of the program can be simple enough to prove in a formal sense, but that doesn't nearly cover all the interesting cases. There's still plenty left over.

And, like I said in my first post, even formally verifying the parts where it is possible would lead to unacceptable budget and deadline overruns, so it's rarely done.

This is often true, but as you probably know, there are cases where verification is worth the cost. Aerospace and medicine come to mind. I'd also hazard a guess that operating systems deserve the extra investment of formal verification. Has anybody ever made a quantitative comparison of the up-front cost of formal verification with the cost of bugs and maintenance work that would have been prevented by formal verification? Is formal verification really that expensive, or are does it just seem expensive because we habitually ignore the costs of skipping it?

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Arlet]

Good code has correctness proofs, even if they're informal and only in the author's head.

But that's still a completely different situation than a structural engineer designing a bridge, and testing its strength by a number of fairly well defined methods and adherence to building codes. An informal proof, existing only in the author's head, is poorly defined, and can easily be wrong.

And, of course, in many cases the specification isn't clear. How would you formally verify a climate model, for instance ?

Is formal verification really that expensive, or are does it just seem expensive because we habitually ignore the costs of skipping it?

I think it's really expensive, but in either case, it's not fair to blame the software engineer for the mess.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Chris Mattern]

In addition, there's no formal way to prove that two programs produce the same output

Of course there is. You can't prove that any two *arbitrary* programs produce the same output (that would be equivalent to the Halting program), but with programs that are written to be formally verified, you can.

and as a consequence there's no general way to prove that a program is equivalent to the specification.

Once again, you can't prove an *arbitrary* program is equivalent to a specification. Programs that written for verification can be so proved.

Of course, like you said, parts of the program can be simple enough to prove in a formal sense

I never said that. I said that there were specific failsafe properties of the *whole* program that can be proved, that such proofs are very useful, and that you *only* get assurances that such properties are true if you formally verify.

like I said in my first post, even formally verifying the parts where it is possible would lead to unacceptable budget and deadline overruns, so it's rarely done.

That, alas, does seem to be the case. In the software industry, "good enough" is good enough. And we're all left looking at the third software glitch we've suffered today.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Arlet]

but with programs that are written to be formally verified, you can.

Sure, but is that subset interesting and powerful enough to solve our problems ? Can we even define a meaningful subset, so that an engineer can follow some rules, and end up with a formally verifiable program ?

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[bjorniac]

Well, I CAN do it, but I don't think I should...

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[w_dragon]

I had a great prof that pointed out that everyone is legally liable for mistakes they make in areas they claim to be an expert in, but only engineers require a course in their undergrad to tell them so.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Micklat]

Good code has correctness proofs, even if they're informal and only in the author's head.

But that's still a completely different situation than a structural engineer designing a bridge, and testing its strength by a number of fairly well defined methods and adherence to building codes. An informal proof, existing only in the author's head, is poorly defined, and can easily be wrong.

If it can't be made right, then the code is wrong - that's the point of making the proof formal, rather than keeping it informal. I was replying to your notion that proving code is impossible due to the halting problem.

And, of course, in many cases the specification isn't clear. How would you formally verify a climate model, for instance ?

Is formal verification really that expensive, or are does it just seem expensive because we habitually ignore the costs of skipping it?

I think it's really expensive, but in either case, it's not fair to blame the software engineer for the mess.

You can't formally verify scientific hypotheses (such as a climate model) but you can certainly verify that a supposed implementation of a climate model is indeed an implementation of that climate model (given enough time and competence). You seem to confuse formal proof with hypothesis testing in this case. You are correct that verifying the implementation's correctness would be expensive, but I was replying to your contention that it is somehow impossible or pointless to prove program correctness. In the case of climate models, making wrong policy decisions because of buggy implementations would probably be no less expensive than the verification process.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[JohnnyBGod]

And creating that specification corretly is almost as difficult as creating the program in the first place.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[Pope]

Some Macromedia moron with a "Sales Engineer" demo'd Dreamweaver 4 to a group of us way back when. He's as much an 'engineer' as I am a CEO.

Re:Everybody is an engineer?

[swalve]

I took that course. Being taught by an "engineer" who never did any actual work. I weep for America.

Recent graduate advice

[FooAtWFU]

It doesn't matter if your first job leaves you unemployed and searching again in a few years. It matters that you're working with people who are smarter than you are and learning how to actually program and write software effectively. Job security? Pay? If you end up as an undifferentiated code monkey left to your own devices or, worse, fighting a monstrous legacy code base and bureaucracy that you're powerless to alter *cough*IBM*cough... you can very easily find you've crippled the rest of your career. At best, the work will be a dull slog.

Go for the startup, if they sound like they have some idea of how to do things right and will offer you meaningful professional development. If you can't take a career risk at this point in your life, when do you think you will be able to? And then for Job #2, you'll have some Skills. You'll be infinitely more employable. You might even be able to look at the monstrous legacy codebase and say, with the authority of experience, that this stinks and there's a better way to do it and yes you will do that refactoring, and you won't hate your job.

Re:Recent graduate advice

[CAIMLAS]

I've been working in IT for 10 years. I've been working in progressively larger and more prestigious institutions this entire time. I've yet to work with anyone "smarter" or (sadly) more capable than I am (at least regarding information technology). The sad fact is that very, very few people are actually "good" at IT: this includes programming. Very few people are good at this, and even fewer are exceptionally good. I don't consider myself exceptional, though I am good.

You're a systems engineer if you're actually engineering a system. Responsible for Foundation Libraries, the LSB, or something similar? You're a systems engineer. Everyone else? Fuck off - you're a sysadmin, a support technician, or a desktop jockey who knows AD. Get over it.

You're a network engineer if you're actually engineering a network. This is pretty easy to accomplish, but difficult to do well enough to not be a pain in the ass for the next guy(s) (assuming the network is not relatively trivial). SMB networking? This doesn't qualify.

Software engineering is what smart people have done, and to a limited degree, are doing. Unless you write libraries or frameworks which others use, you are not a software engineer. I don't care how fucking fast you can develop a NextGen brainfuck with Ruby on Rails. Get in line.

Like most things in this field, the people with business/HR/marketing degrees fuck things up irreparably.

Diversify

[rogueippacket]

Programmers can be outsourced. Employees with unique skills and an interest in the business can't be. Diversify yourself and stay engaged with your management and you will have nothing to worry about, even as a fresh grad.

Re:Diversify

[Tablizer]

In my reply to rbrander's post, I pointed out that domain experience does not seem to be valued by industry in most cases. I don't know why, it just isn't.

Re:Diversify

[SomeStupidNickName12]

don't know which companies you have worked with but in every environment I have every worked in, technical staff (developers etc and to a less extent sysadmins) who have domain/business knowledge are treated like gold.

Career Advice

[crucifiction]

Make sure your website can scale properly. These days there is no excuse except for laziness. Getting slash dotted? Spin up 100 EC2 hosts for a day and load balance them. This isn't rocket science.

Developer, not engineer.

[Vellmont]

I've always hated the term Software Engineer. I've never identified with engineers, or engineering. To me software development is a form of applied mathematics, not engineering.

Programmer is usually associated with a low-skill person who cranks out code. A developer is someone who has to understand the problem inside and out, not merely just complete the task as prescribed.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[xero314]

There is clearly a difference between Programing, Engineering and Architecture. Most of us that have been in the industry for a while have figured this out. You need to find your place in that structure. I personally identify myself as a Software Engineer (perfectly legal in the US as long as I work for someone else). But I identify that way because I send more of my time working on bigger picture items and include in such considerations topics like engineering ethics, than the time I spend typing out code. I can't identify with Architecture at this point because I don't spend my days sitting around making diagrams and drawing pretty pictures, I actually spend my time figuring out how to get actual work done.

All three of these classifications are important when selling, designing and building large systems. The smaller, and less critical, the system the less likely you need each of these categories, which is very similar to material engineering (You can build a bring over your back yard stream all by your lonesome, but you would probably have a hard time building a span of over the Mississipi, for public use, without have a full team).

Programmers are the welders and plumbers of the software industry. They are important and necessary. They would probably do well to organize and bargain collectively. Engineers fill a different role, though they might write code now and again, it should not be their top priority.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[MacGyver2210]

While I am technically a software engineer, I tell people I am a programmer. I don't feel that saying you are a programmer denotes you as low-skill. I'd like to see some of these people bashing the term sit down and write a physics simulation engine from scratch.

Developer, to me, says "I work for someone else trying to come up with a solution to their problems." Programmer, to me, says "I make computers go" - without too much additional information. Engineer seems to me like "I get hung up on this rounding error for two days trying to make everything completely perfect".

Frankly, I'd rather be the "make computers go" guy.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[angel'o'sphere]

Programmers are the welders and plumbers of the software industry. They are important and necessary.

I doubt that. As far as I understand it, a programmer is a low paid, no responsibilities job, mainly existing in the USA (no idea how that works). In my life I never have met a "programmer". Usually in a software development organization everyone has a university degree, aka software engineer, computer science degree, etc.

Nevertheless you are right to distinguish between the levels of developer, "engineer" and architect. However reducing an architect to someone who does not know "how to get actual work done" sounds very strange to me. After all, how should he be able to "make diagrams and drawing pretty pictures" if he does not know how to "actually make things work"?

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[Seumas]

That's great that you hate it and all, but a lot of those people along the line that work with the software that you developed are doing engineering work. They're customizing your software, deploying it, supporting it, writing fixes for it, refining it, and maintaining it. They might be the customer or support person who is reverse engineering your software so that they can figure out why it isn't behaving as designed or to properly document undocumented elements of it. That sounds like engineering work to me. Hopefully you identify in some way with those people, since they're the ones giving your developed software life and purpose once you shove it out the door.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[Dahamma]

To me software development is a form of applied mathematics, not engineering.

Well, engineering is often regarded as a form of applied mathematics. Some universities even put them in the same department.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[xero314]

I doubt that. As far as I understand it, a programmer is a low paid, no responsibilities job, mainly existing in the USA (no idea how that works).

Read my prior statement that, just like welders and plumbers, programers (or developers if you rather) should organize and bargain collectively. Most large software projects would not be able to be completed for a reasonable cost without programers. Engineers are expensive, at least good ones, and you would be foolish to pay engineers to do what developers do. And I don't know about you but I don't want a mechanical engineer trying to fix my car or installing my heating a cooling unit. You need to know when to get the right person for the job.

In my life I never have met a "programmer". Usually in a software development organization everyone has a university degree, aka software engineer, computer science degree, etc.

It's possible that you don't use the same terms where you live. In the US a programer is someone that primarily writes actual software code. Sure they might dabble in design but on a large scale it's not their forte. This are the people that take the loft designs of the Engineers and make it actually work. As an Engineer, I totally understand this, and it's not at all unique to software.

However reducing an architect to someone who does not know "how to get actual work done" sounds very strange to me. After all, how should he be able to "make diagrams and drawing pretty pictures" if he does not know how to "actually make things work"?

I'm not trying to diminish what Architects do, but it really is just drawing pretty pictures. This is true of all fields with architecture, not just software. Architects don't build houses, they don't even design them. Architects have grade ideas about over all look and feel, or in the case of software, general structure. Architects draw pictures and make models. This then gets fed to Engineers who spend their time trying to figure out how to turn that architecture into a useable product. Engineers draw the schematics. Then the technicians, be it carpenters, or programers, take these schematics and use them as the basis of the final product. Usually you can follow the schematic pretty close, but there will always be one or two changes that have to be made, like some required part being out of stock or some customer need was not addressed, or some component is to expensive to implement in IE.

Each part is important to the integrity of the over all product. If architects built buildings they would fall down. If engineers designed the aesthetics of them they would be functional but no one would actually want to live or work in one. If technicians designed them they would end up as a big unstable pile of mismatched parts.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[angel'o'sphere]

While I understand your general stand point, I only can say it is quite different here.
The "developer" aka "programmer" you describe, does not really exist in Europe, most of the developers here are "software engineers".

Each part is important to the integrity of the over all product. If architects built buildings they would fall down.

This as well I can not support. Architects have by law exactly the same responsibilities like a "construction engineer". In fact many constructions are done without any "construction engineer" but are conducted by the architect alone.

If technicians designed them they would end up as a big unstable pile of mismatched parts.

Sorry, no idea in which part of the world you live. Technicians aka engineers are the ones defining (and are the ones liable for) the endproduct. Deviation from their plans needs paperwork and signings by the engineer. You can not simply take the "drawing" of an architect and build the bridge different. (And in the software industries where *I* work, this is the same). It is the architects responsibility to oversee your work and exactly prevent this. Or you have to feed him corrections and first *he* has to sign them and second the *building authorities* have to sign that change as well.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[xero314]

I have worked with many "Software Engineers" from Europe, and not a one was anything other than a programer. That's not a slight on Europeans, as a lot of people from other countries do the same thing, and many of the European programers I have met where damn good programers. I'm just saying that calling yourself a Software Engineer does not mean you are practicing Software Engineering.

Actual Software Engineers are few and far between. Knowing how to design and write clear and complete technical specifications is a talent or interest that very few have. Very few know how to use minimal effort to get a complete result, such as limitations on third party libraries, or avoid reinventing the wheel. And very few people have broad enough experience to be able to make sound decisions. And this is a good thing, since we need a lot more people writing, and testing, code, than we need designing it.

Oh and lets not confuse Programing or Software Engineering with Computer Science. If I need a new and unique algorithm I'll ask a computer scientist. Until then, please keep your hands out of my designs and off my software.

Re:Developer, not engineer.

[swalve]

The engineer's code might be two days late, but at least it is correct. If the software has rounding errors, what's the point of using software in the first place?

more fun..

[mevets]

Invent new meaningless titles for yourself, and for extra grins make them acronym out to something amusing.

Architect of Systems Software
Architect of Computer Interaction Design
Personal Computer Programmer
High Availability Software Head

I'm sure you can do better. There is nothing better than seeing your name and title on a contract, slide or sign and thinking, really, nobody noticed.

Re:more fun..

[neokushan]

Hi! I'm the Versatile Administrator of Giant Interconnected Network Architectures, nice to meet you.

Re:more fun..

[gfody]

for most Architects of Software Systems that I've met the acronym is totally apt!

Re:more fun..

[maxwell demon]

Technology and Computer Professional/Information Professional

Re:more fun..

[Scarletdown]

Hi! I'm the Versatile Administrator of Giant Interconnected Network Architectures, nice to meet you.

A pleasure to meet you.

In my organization, I am the Grand Organizer Administrator and Tester of Software Endeavours.

All I ask is that you ignore that gaping hole in my employment history.

Re:more fun..

[JohnnyBGod]

No title including "Wizard" or "Guru"?

Need people to cut code

[etymxris]

Too many people in IT don't know the first thing about writing code. I think things are changing though. Companies seem to realize you can get by with less people that can do more if your workers can actually program.

Calling oneself a "programmer" tells us exactly what we want to know when we're looking at candidates. So many people put C, C++, Java, C# or whatever on their resume and can't even write a simple for loop.

Patrick McKenzie isn't right about how he describes businesses and employees. We see resumes all the time where someone highlights how they saved their last company six, seven, or eight figures. We don't want to hear that. We want to hear that you have the skills needed to do the job we're hiring you for.

He also isn't right about the language not mattering. It's much easier to go from low level languages to higher level languages than vice versa. If someone was an expert in VB or Python, we would be very hesitant to hire them for a position that required coding in C. And if someone can pick up a language in just a few weeks, then they should do that before they apply to jobs asking for that skill set.

Re:Need people to cut code

[swalve]

You are right about higher languages versus lower ones. I think the author assumed that everyone would know C, and then be able to apply that to the newest language of the week.

I knew AD&D would help!

[Rinikusu]

That's why I put "20th Level Code Rogue/Network Warlock" on my resume.

Re:I knew AD&D would help!

[Kjella]

Except today they play WoW so they're thinking "Wow, what a n00b because I'm 85th level already."

what about train engineers?

[Joe_Dragon]

They are not professional engineers in terms of software or industry. The word engineer dates back to the old days.

Re:what about train engineers?

[Zancarius]

They are not professional engineers in terms of software or industry. The word engineer dates back to the old days.

I see the point you're trying to make, but it's actually a straw man. It's akin to confusing the terms "practice," as in "we're going to soccer practice," versus "practice" as in "I work for Dr. Johnson's practice," and then making an argument accordingly.

AFAIK, the US has something similar. Only IEEE-designated degrees can, technically, call themselves engineers (e.g. electrical engineers), but there's no law that I'm aware of that prohibits anyone else from making up an "engineering" practice (there's that word again), even if it's not valid.

Of course, it's all dependent upon context. Engineer in terms of the profession implies a specific educational background, while engineer in the context of the rail industry implies someone who manages or drives trains.

Depends on the Province...

[CmpEng]

Calling yourself an 'Engineer' in Canada depends on the province you are in. For example, New Brunswick only 'Professional Engineer' is registered while in Ontario it is both 'Professional Engineer' and 'Engineer'. And yes I hold an engineering degree in computer engineering.

Slashdotted

[sheepe2004]

Since the site seems to have been overwhelmed here's the cached, text only version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/&hl=en&strip=1

joomla programmer

[alphatel]

I don't know, would you rather be a joomla programmer or a web guy?

Re:joomla programmer

[salesgeek]

I'd rather you tell the truth and say you are a PHP programmer who has expertise with Joomla. Joomla is only programmable in PHP.

Re:In Canada it's illegal to call yourself a softw

[xero314]

In Canada it's illegal to call yourself a software engineer unless you have the right training and certification. It's like calling yourself a civil engineer in the us without a license.

Actually in the United States you can call yourself what ever you want. What you can't do is sell your services as a independent Engineer without having the appropriate certification. If you work in the Engineering department of a company in an Engineering capacity, then you have every right to call yourself an engineer. If you have graduated from a university with a degree in Engineering, you have every right to refer to yourself as an engineer. If there is no certification organization in your field you can sell your services as an engineer. The certification organizations would like you to think otherwise, but they know full well that in the US an engineer is defined by what you do not what your certifications are. This is also on a state by state basis, unless seeking a federal government contract.

If my state offered a certification in software Engineering then I'd be happy to go about the process. But there are very few states that offers Software Engineering Certification (Texas being the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and even that one is not nationally recognized).

That's why I don't use that phrase.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Instead, growing up on the west coast full of gullible idiots, I call myself a "holistic digital globalistic digital metaphysicist."

Don't be just a programmer

[rbrander]

I've had a terrific career, culminating in a six-figure salary, six weeks vacation, very flexible start times (they wearily put up with my 10AM arrivals as long as I stay to 6), and my choice of projects, and my boss's, boss's, boss's boss recently writing me to congratulating me on 25 years of service and 40 years since I started programming (at 13, with punch-cards) with kind words like "one of our best assets" and "one of a kind".

My secret? I started with a "real" engineering degree and a few years experience at it, then went back or the CompSci degree. I was going to take CompSci at 18 after 5 years of "fun" programming and some paid work doing stats with FORTRAN for civil eng grad students; but backed out with a funny feeling that I should start off in closer touch with the "real world". Best call I ever made.

Being grounded as first an engineer, accountant, doctor, lawyer, nurse, salesperson, surveyor, MBA, technician, any profession that involves a lot of data - in these web days that includes "graphic artist" and "PR", is the difference between GP and medical specialist.

The value you add is that you can skip over half the money spent on software - the requirements analysis, the whole phase of explaining the problem to programmers. Plus, you can go back and forth from yor base profession to w"mostly programming" as the needs of the business come and go. Where there are big software projects, you're the obvious guy to be project leader, you know when the hired programmers are BS-ing or just off-track.

And you're the guy everybody relies upon when the IT systems are balky.What really freaked me is the calls for help I getfrom "kids"- Junior engineers in their early 20's who grew up with Windows PC's and the Web- but they've never studiedprogramming at all. They really aren't sure how to replace me!

So: don't just not call yourself a programmer - don't be one. Enhance another profession with programming.

Re:Don't be just a programmer

[Tablizer]

Domain experience is usually under-valued in my experience. I don't know why, but others have noticed the same thing. Companies seem to want interchangeable IT parts, and this includes software experts, and treat us like such.

You got lucky and found an org that values domain experience.

It's Possible...

[MacGyver2210]

What?!? You don't put two spaces after your periods?!? Better start looking for a new job!!!1

Re:It's Possible...

[PCM2]

FWIW, you should only put two spaces after a period if you're typing in a monospaced font (like on a typewriter). For a proportionally spaced font, it's always one space.

Re:It's Possible...

[Chris Mattern]

Given that a space is narrower than most of the other characters in a proportional font (while, of course, being the same size as all the other characters in a monospaced font), that makes no sense at all.

Re:It's Possible...

[BasilBrush]

You're logical thinking comes to the opposite conclusion than looking at the results does. It's because words in proportional fonts fit closer together than in fix-width fonts, so they don't benefit from the change in spacial rhythm of two spaces that monospaced fonts benefits from.

Having said that, two spaces following a sentence in a monospaced font is now an old fashioned standard. These days one space is standard for either.

Re:It's Possible...

[euroq]

Who decides these rules? I like two spaces between sentences. I think it looks better, and flows better.

Re:It's Possible...

[BasilBrush]

I like two spaces too. But its not the modern style. For example the RSA is the exam board that does most of the typing exams in Britain. For them it used to be two spaces. Now it's one space. HTML also insists on one space. You can put as many spaces as you like between sentences and it'll convert it to one. Unless you use specific tags to stop it. It's not a new thing either - when I was first working in an office in 1984, the change from 2 to 1 space was underway.

More background here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_spacing

To be honest I'm more concerned with the question of whether comments in code should have full stops (periods).

Re:It's Possible...

[snowgirl]

To be honest I'm more concerned with the question of whether comments in code should have full stops (periods).

If they are full sentences, then yes, they should always have full stops.

Not full-sentences? no

Re:It's Possible...

[PCM2]

Who decides these rules?

Printers. Typographers.

I like two spaces between sentences. I think it looks better, and flows better.

But if you typed two spaces between those two sentences, nobody reading your post will see it as two spaces, because HTML doesn't work that way. It still renders as one space unless you intentionally put in non-breaking spaces.

Re:It's Possible...

[swalve]

And I'll bet that's exactly why this "rule" has come into effect. It is what people are used to seeing. I am almost sure that real typesetting rules require more space after a period than between words. (Or at least, a period that's kerned to the left so it looks like more space, even though it is just two characters.)

Re:It's Possible...

[DragonWriter]

FWIW, you should only put two spaces after a period if you're typing in a monospaced font (like on a typewriter). For a proportionally spaced font, it's always one space.

Plenty of house styles places I've worked disagree, though that's my preferred style. The only time that I find doing two-spaces-after-sentence-ending-punctuation to be really problematic (assuming consistency within the document -- inconsistency is irritating anywhere) is when its done in full-justified text.

Re:It's Possible...

[euroq]

Yes, according to Wikipedia, modern digital fonts and rendering are supposed to automatically create more space. But I sure don't see that on my browser.

Re:It's Possible...

[Eunuchswear]

FWIW, you should only put two spaces after a period if you're typing in a monospaced font (like on a typewriter). For a proportionally spaced font, it's always one space.

If you're using a proportional font you should be using a sensible system that knows that the width of a space is not fixed.

Words mean stuff.

[blindseer]

When I worked in Texas I heard about some legal trouble that Microsoft got into. They were handing out these pieces of paper that said "certified engineer" on them. Well, in Texas law (IIRC) the only legal way you could claim to be an engineer was if you had a professional engineer license issued by the state, or you operated a train. People got around this by using the "MSCE" acronym and not defining the term on resumés, business cards, and such. People would also say that they "have an engineering degree" which was OK under the law since people did not claim to be an actual engineer but only had the training to become one.

It was a couple years after I heard about this Microsoft trouble that they stopped issuing "MSCE" certificates but started to use the terms "professional", "developer", "technician", "architect" (I have to wonder if that term is legally loaded as well), "administrator", "specialist", and perhaps a few other terms. Microsoft no longer claims to be producing engineers.

Point is that people cannot just call themselves an engineer if they like. Words mean stuff. The word "engineer" is a legal term in many states. Putting "software engineer" on a business card or resumé and not having an engineering license from the state can get a person in trouble for practicing engineering without a license, or some other crime.

I've had jobs where my title included the term "engineer" but I've never been licensed by the state as an engineer. That somehow seems to get around the law. Perhaps my engineering degree, issued by a state recognized university, allowed me to do that without legal trouble. Maybe the "certified engineer" term is what got Microsoft in trouble.

Point is that certain words have legal meaning, "engineer" is one of them. Be careful how and where you use that word.

Re:Words mean stuff.

[GizmoToy]

What is annoying about the Engineering licensing in the states that do have it is that it's heavily biased towards Civil and Mechanical Engineers, to the point where it is nearly impossible to pursue as an Electrical or Computer Engineer. This is because of the requirement that you train under a certified mentor with the same degree after your Fundamentals of Engineering exam. This is an exam that specifically required all engineers to know the ins and outs of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, items useless to an EE. Since the certification is not very useful to EEs and CompEs, there are very few mentors to train under, making it extremely difficult to get certified.

So the result for an Electrical or Computer Engineer is that you spend somewhere between 4 and 10 years getting Engineering degrees (depending on whether you do graduate studies), only to find you can't actually call yourself an Engineer. If you went to an Engineering school, graduated with an Engineering degree, and work as an Engineer, it is ridiculous to not be able to call yourself an Engineer.

Not many programmers needed

[sgt101]

Very few people working in software today are actually programmers. Most people are software developers, some are architects. Both of those groups do some significant programming very occasionally.

Most work is maintenance - adding features and interfaces to working systems; the skill is the utilization of the components to hand. After that, configuration and customization; taking the wrappers off something and making it work in our environment and process. The next biggest activity is development - bringing a set of components together and getting them to do something new. Finally architecture - thinking at a high level about how the infrastructure will work.

Some places have a need for programmers - people who implement sophisticated algorithms over complex data structures day in and day out. Not that many though.

Re:Not many programmers needed

[salesgeek]

Let me clarify this for you. A programmer is a puh-tey-toh. A software developer is a puh-tah-toh.

Got it?

It's not firing

[ryzvonusef]

No, it's called a divorce :P

Historical note

[DragonHawk]

As a historical note, "coder" used to be a separate job role from "programmer". Programmers wrote programs. On paper. Coders had the job of translating the program into machine code and entering it on the card punch. An early assembly-language system was dubbed "auto-coder" for that reason.

(There's some similarity here with how "computer" used to be a job description as well.)

Train engineers are licensed engineers

[perpenso]

They are not professional engineers in terms of software or industry. The word engineer dates back to the old days.

Untrue. They are very much considered engineers in industry. My grandfather worked for the railroad briefly in the 1930s and in other industrial settings. He had a state issued stationary engineer's license, this implies there is a non-stationary engineer's license that probably referred to train engineers. The stationary engineer's license that he possessed allowed him to fire the boilers in the electrical power generating plant of an army munitions factory during world war 2.

I get your point, but its a mistake to think licensed engineers only consists of the white collar design and build type jobs. At least as recently as the 1950s.

Re:Idiots

[gl4ss]

maybe it's implying that if you're a "programmer", all you can do is to turn pseudo-code to some language.

what people want nowadays are software developers.. because they don't know what they want the software to even do, but they want some of that sweet, sweet, sweeeet software.

Computing Machinist

[Rob Riggs]

I guess tht makes me a union man. Really, I never understood what that term meant. (ACM - Look it up if you don't get it.)

Well that...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the fact that individual software developer consultants cannot incorporate (well...you can form the s-corp, nobody will stop you, but the IRS will take all your money away after you have made any).

And also the fact that software developers are chronically overworked.

And also the fact that employers don't want to pay real money for the work.

And last but not least, plenty of would-be software developers don't really have what it takes, and are just attracted to the field for the highly portable and marketable skill set. Once they land a job and discover how much it sucks, they move to management (an ANY industry) as quickly as they can.

Re:Well that...

[nomadic]

"well...you can form the s-corp, nobody will stop you, but the IRS will take all your money away after you have made any"

Yes, that pesky 100% tax rate.

How is this important?

[Jack9]

The whole article seems misguided. A "let me tell you how it is" (with a complete disregard for the reality).

Engineer

[Chris Deckard]

If you do not have an Engineering degree, you should not call yourself an Engineer. As someone who works for an Engineering University, who does NOT have an Engineering degree, I would never water down what an Engineer is. It is prestigious, and should remain so. Respect the title. If you're not one, don't call yourself one.

Re:Engineer

[WWE-TicK]

You should try actually working with people outside of academia and you will quickly learn that just because there degree says "engineer" on it doesn't make them an engineer. You will learn the converse to be true as well. I've encountered people with physics degrees and computer science degrees hold "engineering-type" positions who I would say were actual engineers compared to people who were really nothing more than "paper" engineers.

Re:Engineer

[Xest]

What's with Engineers and their arrogance?

Up until 2 months ago I was working at a mechanical engineering firm as a software developer, full to the brim with certified engineers. There was nothing special about them, I had to learn their trade to build systems to support them in their role, and I helped them obtain a number of patents because none of their engineers were competent enough in math to know what math they needed to solve which problem.

I'm not saying engineers aren't in the upper tiers when it comes to intelligence, but they're no more special than physicists, biologists, chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, developers and the like yet for some reason they have this overblown image of themselves as special.

I'm not even saying certification for professions like this are a bad thing, particularly where safety is critical a lot of the time. But fundamentally what bugs me is the "You can't call yourself a software engineer" mentality - why? software engineering isn't any less skilled or difficult than the likes of mechanical, and civil engineering etc.

Scientists, mathematicians et al. don't feel the need to protect their titles with such zeal - if you need to check someone's credentials then "chartered" as a prefix for those who genuinely are is a good enough distinction. But pretending that the meaning of terms shouldn't change as the world does, for a specific profession for whom the meaning of the name of that profession has changed drastically from it's original rail related origins anyway just stinks of pettiness, and arrogance. I just can't help but feel such engineers who feel this way should simply get the fuck over themselves, they're not special.

Re:State law: Only engineers can have that title.

[salesgeek]

Sheesh. This is silly. The only place where there is an issue is when someone hangs out a shingle that and practices engineering. People with creative job titles (i.e. Database Engineer) and graduate engineers (4 year degree EE without license) are not being prosecuted for calling themselves by their job titles or degrees UNLESS they hang out a shingle and open a contract engineering company or are claiming to own a company that holds an authorization certificate and does not.

This whole trying to make engineering work like the law industry isn't going

Blogspam

[thatskinnyguy]

If you haven't read TFA, don't waste your time. It's all an opinion piece from one guy's perspective. [citation needed] should appear after every assertion.

Software Engineer

[antdude]

A CS professor, Dr. Thomas Plew (RIP) in the late 1990s/90s, said "software engineer" was a better title than programmer. I don't remember if he said software developer was good or bad.

One Word...

[interval1066]

...PLCs. For right now, PLCs are the way to go.

Re:Programmers are not Software Engineers

[WWE-TicK]

Something tells me you've never seen the curriculums for undergraduate software engineering degrees. They're computer science degrees with mandatory software management courses thrown in replacing what would've been elective courses in Computer Sceince. At least in the States they are. Nothing about the curriculums make them more "engineering-like" than Computer Science. Unless my CS program just happened to be more "engineering-like" compared to everybody else. Perhaps ABET accreditation makes all the difference.

I'm a programmer

[msobkow]

I'm a programmer. I have been for over 25 years.

I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of "software engineer". I think it's as ludicrous as "sanitation engineering."

Any employer who thinks "programmer" is a derogatory or lesser term is too blinded by buzzwords for me to be happy working for them anyhow.

Re:I'm a programmer

[iplayfast]

Found your post after I wrote mine. (probably a couple down from yours). Totally agree!

Re:I'm a programmer

[Undead Waffle]

I don't understand what people think is so absurd about the term "software engineer". The approaches to solving problems is very similar between programmers and other engineering professions. Not for all types of software, but certainly for any complicated system. Unless you're one of those programmers that copies and pastes code everywhere and generally leaves a mess for the next guy, but there are equivalents to this in other engineering practices as well.

Validation and Verification

[dtmos]

The author, Patrick McKenzie, describes himself as an "awkward twenty-something CEO of a multinational company." As an "awkward fifty-something CTO of a multinational company," I can state that I have never read a more truthful and cogent collection of career advice for this profession.

What he says is the way it is.

Re:"Engineers" in Software

[Anonymous Coward]

The term "Engineer" being applied to IT folk, technicians, etc, annoys me and has caused me considerable consternation over the years looking for work. I have a degree in Computer Engineering; it's a real ABET-accredited engineering degree. The curriculum I took in college only differed from a pure Electrical Engineering degree by a few classes. (We skipped Analog Electronics II, Power Systems, E&M II, and Control Systems. We added Digital Signal Processing, Advanced Digital Electronics, Microprocessors, Programming I/II, and a couple of software electives. Our curriculum actually required 9 more hours than the EE degree.)

Please don't take this personally, but I've known quite a few hardware degreed folks who style themselves as software engineers. In my old line of work (Dept of Defense), actual software engineering had a lot to do with formal methods, verification, testing, and frankly oft-times math well beyond the bog standard diffeqs that so many engineers consider to be their final math course. Many degreed hardware engineers don't have a clue (nor do some computer science folks). And no, having an engineering degree in another discipline doesn't give you the "right" (facetious here) to call yourself a software engineer.

Not trying to be a dick about it, but just sayin'. ;)

First rule for new grads...

[SETIGuy]

Never expect Human Resources to be human or resourceful.

Re:First rule for new grads...

[swalve]

HR is unfortunately where people with teaching degrees go when they couldn't pass their licensing exam. My company has a surprising number of HR types, most of whom seem to exist to make brownies and play with construction paper.

Re:State law: Only engineers can have that title.

[dtmos]

Note this passage in the Florida statutes (471.031 (1)(b)1.): "A person may not [...] use the name or title “professional engineer” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer when the person is not licensed under this chapter, including, but not limited to, the following titles: [...] 'software engineer,' 'computer hardware engineer,' or 'systems engineer.'"

I can tell you from personal experience that the State of Florida will prosecute someone simply for having a business card with the title of "Software Engineer" who is not a Registered Professional Engineer in the state. (No, it wasn't my card.) People thinking that "people with creative job titles [...] are not being prosecuted for calling themselves by their job titles or degrees UNLESS they hang out a shingle and open a contract engineering company or are claiming to own a company that holds an authorization certificate and does not" are living in a dreamworld. A printed card clearly violating a statute is what's known in the legal profession as "physical evidence," and prosecutors wanting an easy conviction love these kinds of cases.

Um... no

[rsilvergun]

programming anything but the most trivial applications is computer science, e.g. math, and lots of it. Every single aspect of programming involves lots and lots of math, even for supposed 'application programmers'. Take a few 300 level CS courses (you need them to work on big projects) and you'll find it's really just discrete math. As soon as you get past a web form + php for 20 users you're in math territory, if only to just make your app fast enough to scale.

Re:Um... no

[obsess5]

Have you ever worked on non-trivial applications? I worked on satellite ground systems for 25 years, first in image processing and then in monitoring and control. The heavy-weight math was done by actual mathematicians; e.g., those who understood spherical geometry, etc. We programmers were basically moving data around; a smattering of basic math and basic statistics was involved and, yes, some discrete math. The math certainly had nothing to do with scaling applications; we were already processing high-speed data streams.

Wrong-o

[dtmos]

See this comment. You absolutely cannot call yourself whatever you want in the US. Rules vary by state, but in almost all states the reason you have every right to call yourself an engineer if you work in the engineering department of a company in an Engineering capacity, is because that industry is specifically exempted from such requirements (in Florida, it's the aerospace and military industries, with some other, lesser, exceptions). Calling oneself a "Software Engineer" without also being a Registered Professional Engineer is specifically listed as a prohibited act in the statues.

The "certification organizations" are irrelevant; this is state law.

I'm a programmer and proud of it.

[iplayfast]

I've had a career in programming for about 30 years so far. I've loved the tech side of things, and I've always called myself a programmer. (or grunt)
People either know what it means or they don't and you have to explain it to them.
Calling yourself a software engineer does not change the job.

A programmer by any other name is still a programmer (and smells as sweet).

Re:State law: Only engineers can have that title.

[salesgeek]

I am not a lawyer,and the following is not legal advice:

I can see where anyone who is a sole proprietor or owns a company and entitles them self a "systems engineer" or "software engineer" would run into trouble under that law. After reading all of 471, I can't see where some guy who gets a job as a programmer at a company he does not own and gets handed a stack of business cards that say "software engineer" on them would be prosecuted under 471.031. Would seem there are more than a few provisions in that law to prevent people in that situation from being prosecuted (see .003, 0.31, .023).

In other words, a printed card may or may not violate the statute, and you probably should get some legal advice from an actual lawyer if you are concerned about it.

Programming good enough for Knuth

[Cooker]

Although most likely true, this just goes to show that adjectives follow fashion and fall out of favor.

The bible of software engineering algorithms?--The Art of Computer Programming (vol. 1-4) by Donald Knuth.
I'm pretty sure that the humble Knuth wouldn't have a problem describing himself as a Programmer.

Re:Programming good enough for Knuth

[jgrahn]

Although most likely true, this just goes to show that adjectives follow fashion and fall out of favor.

The bible of software engineering algorithms?--The Art of Computer Programming (vol. 1-4) by Donald Knuth. I'm pretty sure that the humble Knuth wouldn't have a problem describing himself as a Programmer.

Knuth also wrote (in an interview somewhere?) about how one interesting aspect of a programmer's work is the jumping between abstraction levels. One minute you're at the machine language level -- the other you're thinking of overall design, or usability. And of course that's what he did when he created TeX.

BTW, I'm sitting with a Debian Linux machine typing this. I wonder how they divided the work when writing ls, vi and awk? Or the other gigabytes of excellent free software in the Debian archive?

Visicalc

[fyngyrz]

There's a live copy of MSDOS visicalc on that site; I grabbed it, ran it (under XP) -- awesome nostalgia. Thanks!

Maintainability

[Tablizer]

Plus, creating maintainable code is an even more difficult skill. The pool of people who can program is limited, and the pool of those who know how to build maintainable code is even smaller.

I've seen a lot of newbies make spiffy stuff, but when I look at their code or have to fix or change it when they move on, Mamma Mia!

Title Inflation

[Tablizer]

If everybody inflates their title to avoid the pitfalls of peon-sounding titles, then it dilutes the worth of the higher titles, and pretty soon they all mean nothing.

"I'm not a trash-man, I'm a Waste Engineer!"

It just becomes a never-ending bullshit game. If we were good at that, we'd instead go into marketing or politics.
   

Re:Programmers being isolated from Programmees.

[Swampash]

You just have to specify "Software Engineering" to distinguish it from real actual engineering.

Re:In Canada it's illegal to call yourself a softw

[mark-t]

Citation required. Seriously.

I live in Canada. While I do know that there are penalties for misrepresenting oneself as having actual engineering training and education, I am unaware of any prohibitions on the term "software engineer".

I've called myself a software engineer for decades now.... Nobody has ever so much as looked at me sideways for it.... it's even been listed on official records of employment that the government itself has records of... if it were illegal, I'm pretty sure I would have heard about it by now.

I write programs, but I'm not a programmer.

[Mr Z]

My job duties range from architecting caches and DSP structures, to coming up with clever ways to break systems, to automatically generating performance characterization suites, to analyzing the bulk quantities of data that result from them.

To do all these things, I write a fair bit of software to achieve these goals. But, in the end the software is a tool to reach some other end. It isn't an end in and of itself.

Therefore, while I program things (and program them well, IMHO), I don't consider myself a "programmer." My primary work output isn't programs. It's architectural decisions, performance analysis, etc. Programs are just a tool I use to get there. The fact that I fashioned my own tools just means I'm more likely to achieve my goals than someone who can't make their own tools when none exist that will give them the answer they need.

Now, if the primary output of my job was software, where others provided the requirements inputs, and I produced software to meet those requirements for someone else's consumption, then I might consider calling myself a programmer. But honestly, I have to believe a large quantity of software gets written to further some other immediate need, not as an end in and of itself.

Startups

[tehcyder]

What is the American obsession with working for a startup company all about? Is it just the prospect of working hard for a few years and then cashing in when it goes public?

Re:Startups

[swalve]

Yes. But it is also about the work. We like the idea that someone can have a good idea, work hard at it, and be successful. Even if it doesn't end up with Google style payouts, we like the idea that someone can start with an idea and end up with a company that does good work and makes the world a better place.

It is exhilarating to work for a startup, because you are often working without a net.

Change yourself completely to get ahead, but ...

[lwriemen]

At the end of the day, your life happiness will not be dominated by your career.

What if being called a programmer makes you happy? ;-)

This advice sounds

[SlippyToad]

Like it is for people who are forced to work with sub-IQ nitwits.

If you call yourself a programmer, someone is already working on a way to get you fired.'

If you don't want a programmer, what in the hell is your business doing developing software?

I don't

[neminem]

I call myself a codemonkey. Reclaiming the term! Codemonkey and proud of it! (Mostly because it's an inherently funny word.)

EM&C

[plcurechax]

EM&C - Electron Manager & Capitalist