Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Developer Or Software Engineer? Can It Influence Your Work?
ctrahey writes "Many of us disregard the impact of our titles on various aspects of our lives, both professional and otherwise. Perhaps it's appropriate to ask two questions about the difference between a couple titles familiar to the Slashdot community: Developer vs Software Engineer. What are the factors to consider in the appropriate use of the titles? And (more interesting to me), what influence might the use of these titles have on the written code? Have you observed a difference in attitudes, priorities, or outlooks in talent as a corollary to their titles?"
an Alberta court dismissed the lawsuit filed by The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) against Raymond Merhej for using the title "System Engineer", claiming that, "The Respondent's situation is such that it cannot be contended that the public is likely to be deceived, confused or jeopardized by his use of the term
If you read further in that link, they're working on compromise. The associations obviously want to protect themselves and keep the membership fees rolling in but they're fighting a losing battle. No one in software cares about titles like they do.
Also, as I believe it's actually the specific title of "Professional Engineer" (P.Eng) that is protected in Canada. Not just any old engineering title.
Here's how I've observed some terms used:
- Coder: a person who knows how to bang out some software code; often used disparragingly. cf "Code Monkey"
- Programmer: Any person who makes software for a living. Used mostly when speaking with non-technical people, because they immediately understand what it means.
- Developer: Neutral term for a person who makes software.
- Software Engineer: A developer who favors a heavily-planned approach to making software.
- Software Architect: Someone who designs applications or systems. May be "hands on" and themselves write significant parts of the application; or maybe more of a management role.
It could well mean that the huge university infrastructure was built without any engineers; that doesn't mean that it was built without any engineering.
In my country at least, you could write a contract, sue the other side and represent yourself in court, but you still wouldn't be a lawyer; you could perform life-saving surgery but you still wouldn't be a doctor. There is more to those jobs than doing the actual job - things like professional regulation, ethical standards and training requirements. Engineering is similar here; to be called an engineer you have to pass a lot of particular requirements, only one of which is actual work in engineering.
In general I regard this as a good thing. The regulation and requirements imposed on lawyers mean that when a solicitor at a large firm tells me over the phone that they will transfer £1m I can rely on that without even needing anything in writing. Similarly with engineers, when I buy property I look to see that a qualified structural engineer signed off on the structure. I don't need to go behind that because I can be confident that if he was qualified he knew what he was doing - and that if he was wrong he has enough insurance cover for me to recover my losses.
I'm not quite so sure in the case of software engineers - there just doesn't seem to be the equivalent professional body and I'm not sure that the nature of IT development lends itself so easily to a regulated profession. It would be a shame however if people's desire to give themselves a more impressive title devalued the status of engineers in other fields, especially when (as is shown, I think, by this discussion) it doesn't really add anything to call someone a "software engineer" because the title has no fixed meaning.