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?"

Comments

Are you an engineer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you have a degree in Software Engineering, it's both misleading and might be illegal to use the "Software Engineer" title in your country.

Re:Are you an engineer?

[Concerned Onlooker]

I think I agree with you, but what if you have a degree in computer science? Is your title "Developer with a degree in Computer Science?" I don't think I could really call myself a computer scientist with a straight face, yet that is my degree.

Re:Are you an engineer?

[thetoadwarrior]

Your link even states that there is no complete agreement on it. Some claim it is actual engineering and others claim software moves too fast to be real engineering. Canada seems to be only country that gets really uppity about it and it sounds like even they're looking to compromise if you click the regulation link from your link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#Canada_2

The use of the term "engineer" was an issue between professional bodies, the I.T. industry, and the security industry, where companies or associations may issue certifications or titles with the word "engineer" as part of that title (such as security engineer or Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer). Microsoft have since changed the title to "Microsoft Certified IT Professional". Several licensing bodies for professional engineering contend that only licensed professional engineers are legally allowed to use the title "Engineer". The I.T. industry, on the other hand, counters that:

• These title holders never presented themselves as "Professional Engineers";
• Provincial laws, other than in Quebec and Ontario, regulate only the use of term "Professional Engineer", and not any title with the word "Engineer" in it;

• in Quebec and Ontario, the term "Engineer" is protected by both the Engineers Act[27] and by section 32 of the Professional Code[28]); and,

• The I.T. industry has used the term "engineer" since the dawn of the computing industry in the 60s.[29]

Court rulings regarding the usage of the term "engineer" have been mixed. For example, after complaints from the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, a court in Quebec fined Microsoft Canada $1,000 for misusing the "engineer" title by referring to MCSE graduates as "engineers".[30] Conversely, 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"[31] APEGGA also lost the appeal to this decision.[32]

The Canadian Information Processing Society[33] and in particular CIPS Ontario[34] have attempted to strike a balance between the professional engineering licensing bodies and the IT industry over the use of the term "engineer" in the software industry, but so far no major agreements or decisions have been announced..

So you and the original poster aren't entirely correct. Otherwise The Association of Professional Engineers wouldn't have lost its court case.

Protectionism over the title engineer is nothing more than an excuse for a group to milk money out of people. The title sofware engineer has been used for ages while not having a professional body demanding fees. This of course upsets other engineers but that's the way it is and it's unlikely to change. There are too many software engineers who aren't going to want to be milked for a membership fee that offers them nothing of real value.

Re:Are you an engineer?

[fm6]

Even if you have the hat?

Re:Are you an engineer?

[gunnk]

Then again... the work I do is what universities currently consider "IT Systems Engineering". My work integrates Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, NetApp, VMware and Citrix platforms as well as covering security, development, data archiving, and a host of other tasks. My skills extend beyond those areas, but those are the ones I use in my day job.

My degree, however, is physics.

Well, that's typical of systems engineers/whatever-the-heck-you-want-to-call-us for those of us who remember 300 baud, FidoNet and (later) Bitnet email accounts. Ever typed an assembler into an Apple //c by hand from a magazine? No? GET OFF MY LAWN!

When I started in IT there was NO SUCH THING as a degree in IT Systems Engineering. Does that mean I'm not an IT Systems Engineer? We don't have an official job title of "systems engineer". My job title is "Advanced Systems Specialist" at my workplace. There's not an official "Systems Engineer" title at all. Does that mean this HUGE university infrastructure was built without any engineers/engineering? Really?

My point: I find there are plenty of people that have titles they are "allowed" to use but to which they fall far, far short. I also know brilliant people that run circles around those folks who have no "official" title (some have no degree at all). My feeling: use whatever title *actually* describes what you do and are capable of doing (and I'm sorry if the law prevents you from doing so where you live). Using a lesser title is selling yourself short. Using a greater title is setting yourself up for failure, firing, and ridicule.

Be honest and accurate about your capabilities. No more. No less.

Re:Are you an engineer?

[maz2331]

I do all of the above, plus write code, administer databases, and even deal with Nagios for monitoring it all.

Forget the Engineer title... I'm just putting IT Guru as my title on my next box of cards.

Re:Are you an engineer?

[Xest]

This "Engineer" snobbery doesn't seem too prominent in the UK thankfully, but I've seen this debate a lot on Slashdot, mostly from North American folks so it's a big deal there I guess.

The reason I find the whole debate stupid is that it seems to be framed round this idea that Engineers are magical people, who believe they're superior to others and that no one else should are be able to claim their title.

The problem is that Engineers aren't at the top of the chain, not by any measure. What they learn is a subset of science and maths, so their claim to be special is false as any say, physicist or mathematician will have no problem learning their trade, and then some.

This is where I have a problem with it, I was a developer/software engineer/whatever in an engineering firm, but my degree is in Mathematics. I had absolutely no, and I mean no problem whatsoever dealing with the mathematics and rigour the engineers there had to know and created bits of software they all found very useful on that knowledge. Worse, not even all the engineers understood the math involved and it was only really the principal engineers there who knew it better than me (it was they who taught me) such that there was this absurd scenario that within the company, as a software developer I had better understanding and competence of the actual engineering knowledge than many of the engineers themselves and still had time to be good at my software development role to boot.

So you'll have to excuse me if engineering snobbery doesn't really cut it with me, the idea that I shouldn't call myself a software engineer, because I'm not an engineer, and yet was still more competent in that particular field of engineering than many of the engineers. Case in point, you only have to look at software like Inventor etc. that do a ton of stuff that 90% of engineers couldn't do themselves (like FEA for example). That had to be built by developers, so don't pretend developers aren't capable of being engineers.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter, the fact is having some engineering title doesn't make you special, doesn't make you inherently more competent. Engineers are for the most part extremely smart, and intelligent people, but if they think they're the smartest and most intelligent profession out there, and that they're inherently more smart than say, software engineers, then they can simply go fuck themselves because that's little more than ignorant arrogance. They're not, not by any measure and I suspect that for every great engineer, I could find an equally smart and competent software developer to match them, similarly I suspect I could find even smarter physicists and mathematicians.

As you say it's about being honest about your competence that matters and allowing software developers to call themselves a type of engineer isn't exactly going to bring down the engineering profession - there's enough over-inflated ego engineers who aren't actually that great out there already to do that by themselves. Looking at the complexity of software and hence skill required to build it that's developed nowadays I suspect if anything it may raise standards.

Re:Are you an engineer?

[Kijori]

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.

Re:Are you an engineer?

[canadian_right]

In many places wanting to protect the term "Engineer" isn't snobbery it is due to the legal fact that a "professional engineer" is legally liable regarding the safety of any designs they sign off on.

If you aren't willing to be sued if your software fails you aren't an engineer.

Programmer vs. Software Engineer

[jayveekay]

A programmer (developer?) writes code that hopefully works. A software engineer writes code that is designed to work.

What about programmer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to just say programmer.

Programmer.

Programmer.

Programmer.

Re:What about programmer?

[Arancaytar]

Programmers programmers programmers PROGRAMMERS PROGRAMMERS PROGRAMMERS. *chairtoss*

Nah, doesn't flow off the tongue.

I'll stick with "developers".

Gets more babes

[DuncanE]

Easy.... Use software engineer. It sounds richer so gets more babes ;)

Programmer, Motherfucker!

[mhh91]

Do you speak it?

Well...

[PhrostyMcByte]

Software Engineer: can build a flexible, properly designed application architecture and has grown past the schooled "everything fits within some methodology X" phase (i.e. can think outside the box).

Developer: will usually be able to make something that works, and even write quite nice code when given good direction, but can create a mess when given a chance to be a cowboy coder.

Are you a hacker?

[betterunixthanunix]

Here is a rough guide for deciding what to call yourself:

1. Do you have a set of well-defined methods for designing, documenting, and implementing the software you write? Then you might be a software engineer.
2. Do you sit down and bang out code a few hours before the deadline, without adhering to a well-defined method of designing the system? If so, you might be a developer.

Of course, many programmers are somewhere in the middle, usually leaning more towards "engineering" when the deadline is months away and "developing" when the deadline is days away.

IMO None.

[eagee]

I was a "Senior Software Engineer" before I got a promotion, now I'm a "Lead Developer". Aside from providing guidance to other engineers I still do the same job. Personally, I wanted my new title to be "Mr. Manager" instead, but no one seemed to like that idea :(. Seriously, I've worked in states where it's illegal to give someone without an engineering degree the title "Engineer", but I've worked with engineers who didn't finish college and found them every bit as good (sometimes much better) than the ones who didn't.

Software Engineer vs. Computer Scientist

[Ichijo]

It doesn't make sense that a software engineer would need a degree in computer science. They are two different domains.

Maybe software tends to be so buggy because it isn't always engineered to be reliable. It's cobbled together in the lab, and if it works in the lab, the assumption is that it will work in the field.

Re:Software Engineer vs. Computer Scientist

[Anubis IV]

You've made two different arguments, one of which is patently incorrect. The other, however, while possible, sounds like a recipe for disaster.

First off, they are hardly separate domains. Software Engineering is merely one field within Computer Science, which is itself a rather broad field covering a number of different disciplines (e.g. artificial intelligence, interface design, networking, graphics, formal language development, etc.). You only need to read a handful of research papers in the field of Software Engineering before you'd be convinced of the same. It's just as science-based as the rest of Computer Science, just as theoretical, and just as full of lab ideas that don't actually work in the field. Plus, it's inseparable from other Computer Science fields such as programming language design, which dictate just which ideas are even possible. Granted, it's a bit of a misnomer to call it "Software Engineering", since it's actually more like "Software Design Science", but I didn't choose the name.

Moving on, your core idea was that Software Engineers do not need a degree in Computer Science, but I just can't see how that would work. Playing my own Devil's Advocate for a bit, most "Computer Scientists" are actually engaging in applied Computer Science (i.e. programming/developing) rather than the pursuit of Computer Science (i.e. working in academia or an industry R&D lab). Similarly, most Software Engineers are engaging in applied Software Engineering, rather than pursuing the science of the field. Again, playing Devil's Advocate, I could see an argument for providing a curriculum more focused on the "what" and "how" (i.e. "here are what the tools are and how you use them") to the exclusion of the "why", somewhat analogous to what a two-year programming degree might offer. It teaches the tools but not the reasoning behind them.

That said, I just can't imagine what cuts you would make so that it's no longer a Computer Science degree. You can't cut out programming from the Software Engineer's curriculum. If you did, you'd be effectively putting someone with no experience in a design position where experience REALLY counts. That works in traditional engineering fields where they can be shepherded by someone more experienced for several years. But software projects tend not to be large enough to justify paying for someone who can't pull their own weight once the programming needs to get done, let alone an experienced one and a newcomer. So unless you want to force them to program despite their lack of training in it, you will have to move them on before they get in the trenches to make the thing they've designed. As a result, they'll be entirely divorced from the feedback process that would influence future design ideas. As I said at the top, that sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

So if you're going to be leaving in programming, what else would you cut from a typical Computer Science degree? At the time I was in grad school, our undergrad Computer Science department curriculum was revamped to have students choose a "branch" once they reached their upper level courses (i.e. the ones after intro programming, data structures, algorithms, etc.). One of those branches was Software Engineering, and, as you can guess, students who chose that branch would be taking a number of classes oriented around that topic. Even if there were a dedicated Software Engineering degree, I'm not sure how it would be functionally different from a Software Engineering oriented degree in Computer Science, like what my university already offers.

Bah, that's a load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

It would only be illegal if there was a public certification. There is no legislative authority in college program accreditation, or in determining titles. As long as someone is not misrepresenting their resume, there is nothing illegal with any title. I could call an employee "King of England" if I wanted to.

Re:Bah, that's a load of crap

[Tridus]

Not true in Canada. Calling yourself an "engineer" without the appropriate blessing is in fact illegal.

Re:Bah, that's a load of crap

[thetoadwarrior]

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering#Canada_2

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.

Re:Have to be Registered?

[Dahamma]

Ethics tests are pretty pointless in practice. There is a big difference between knowing ethics and being ethical.

I'm pretty sure 99.9% of convicted criminals knew they were committing a crime at the time...

Seinfeld

[afgam28]

Women need to like the job of the guy they’re with. If they don’t like the job, they don’t like the guy. Men know this. Which is why we make up the phony, bogus names for the jobs that we have. “Well, right now, I’m the regional management supervisor. I’m in development, research, consulting...”

Men on the other hand – if they are physically attracted to a woman – are not that concerned with her job. Are we? Men don’t really care. Men’ll just go, “Really? Slaughterhouse? Is that where you work? That sounds interesting. So whaddaya got a big cleaver there? You’re just lopping their heads off? That sounds great! Listen, why don’t you shower up, and we’ll get some burgers and catch a movie.”

Re:Seinfeld

[greg1104]

Kid, you obviously don't know anything about dating in 1967. During the Summer of Love, showers were strictly optional, and instead of going for a burger the invitation would include "we'll get some acid".

One of them sounds better

[Tridus]

Outside of the countries where "Software Engineer" actually has a legal meaning and requirements to claim it (while "Developer", "Programmer", or whatever doesn't), the difference is largely that one sounds better than the other. People like to use "Software Engineer" even if they're in fact nothing of the sort, due to the connotation that comes with it.

It's not hard to find people calling themselves Software Engineers that aren't doing anything resembling engineering, just like it's not hard to find people calling themselves Developers that are really doing software engineering. In the end if you're able to do the job well, nobody gives a damn what you're calling yourself.

There's a difference?

[mdf356]

Both places I've worked in my 11 years as a professional didn't really distinguish. I have a Computer Science and Engineering degree. I write and design software. I'm in the research and development arm (or the Engineering arm) of the company. It's several ways to say one thing.

Yes, some distinctions can be drawn, like whether you interface with customers, who does the architecture or design, etc., but in general the people I work with are all over the software life cycle, from beginning to end. We do development (of software) and the official job title has always had "Engineer" and sometimes "Development" or "Software" in it.

Just titles...

[Valtor]

In my opinion, those are just titles my friend and I see no reasons why we should ever consider them anything more.

My title is... Owner

[stretch0611]

Whether I call myself a developer or software engineer will not affect my income. I'm old school (over 40) and I think that people building systems as long as I have tend not to care about titles. I'm not even sure there was a "software engineer" title when I started programming.

What I can say is that people that are coming out of college today calling themselves either tend to not have a clue what they are doing. (Of course there are exceptions, but the truly good people are hard to find.) And don't forget the recent title of "Software (or Data) Architect..." This idiots conceptualize a system, charge a ton of money, and have others build it. When it fails, they blame the developers and/or run to another job.

Then there are "Front End Developers," which are nothing more than a graphic/web designer that knows how to add some horribly written jQuery to a site and changed their name to developer in order to get paid more.

Essentially this whole debate is really about one huge issue: Large Companies are trying to turn the entire development process into something that can be done like an assembly line. They are chopping it up into little pieces so that anyone can perform the same monotonous task. The smaller your piece is, the more people that can focus on that specific area, the more people that can do it, the less you are worth. The less the companies pay, the happier they become. The more pieces there are, the more titles.

Unfortunately, (or fortunately if you really know what you are doing) the development process is not easy to break down into pieces. While certain pieces can be farmed out, the overall system will work best when one person knows how to build the system as a whole and can take the project from the requirements to a working application. (And companies rarely want to pay for these good people.)

Re:Engineer?

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sadly, the answer is no to all of these. The person who cuts your hair has more certification than the person who writes pacemaker software."

Yes, I have read about issues with pacemakers... but I've also had bad haircuts. Certification by the State is no guarantee that you will be good at your job.

The real differences

[heretic108]

From my R&D experience across many companies, it's clear to me that a "software engineer" is a proper superset of "developer".

1. A 'developer' is paid to create code that works within the company's contrived runtime environment and passes a few stages of testing, while a 'software engineer' is also paid to ensure the code actually works reliably in this nebulous abstract construct called the "real world" - customer/client installations where there are innumerable environmental variables and things that can go wrong.
2. A "developer" nods timidly and reluctantly to Murphy while passing in the corridor. But the software engineer says "Thanks for another great night. What would you like for breakfast?"
3. A "developer" goes whining to her/his team leader when the tools or OS play up. A software engineer cracks out the machine-code debugger, logic analyser and oscilloscope, traces all the API calls, and spits out working patches for the bugs in the libraries, drivers and kernel.

If I had some plant that was failing at 3:15am and costing me a fortune, I know which I would prefer to have on site.

What about "trendy douche" ?

[Gothmolly]

What if you just ramble on about .Net and quibble over which IDE is better, all the while saying words like "Scrum" and "Agile"?

Sure you'll get a job, but you won't ever actually produce anything.

Terminology

[jmcvetta]

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.

Computer Science is not an Engineering Discipline

[tyrione]

There is a reason people laugh and mock people who call themselves Software Engineers outside of the IT World. They are fluff titles. Even at its best, Computers Engineering is just a subset of Electrical Engineering focused on the designs of hardware from the CPU/GPU/DSP, etc., and their interaction with Software.

Whether it is Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical, Biomechanical [Applied ME with Biology], Civil, Structural, Materials Science Engineering disciplines are grounded in mutable laws of engineering extended from the laws of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, through all applicable languages of Mathematics Disciplines.

Bill Joy has long wished for Software Engineering to become factual by taking cues from Mechanical Engineering [though since he never has been a Mechanical Engineer I doubt he realizes how impractical that wish will ever be], due to the innate Art behind Computer Programming, Computer Architecture, Computer Software Design, etc.

In order for Software Engineering to be a recognized Engineering Discipline via ABET one would expect them to take Thermodynamics/Thermodynamic Systems, Dynamic Systems, Materials Science Engineering, Finite Element Analysis and more where one applies the various electives to writing Software applications to apply said disciplines--the exact reality all Engineering disciplines due for zero credit or recognition.

You want an Engineering Degree, then get one. You want a Computer Science degree and it's several specialties than get one. Stop pretending they are equivalent. None of my former CS majors ever compared our CS degree curriculum to my Mechanical Engineering curriculum. Mechanical Engineering is a very broad and deep curriculum now with several areas including Tribology, MEMS, Robotics [Applied Kinematics with EE/ME control systems], along with their many other tracks in Machine Design, Fracture Mechanics, Dynamic Systems, Heat Transfer Disciplines, etc].

Stop calling yourselves Software Engineers. You aren't designing solutions that adhere to Computer Science Laws. You are designing to Best Practices, Design Patterns, all centered around Semantics/Linguistics/Discrete mathematics, applied logic and other Art disciplines. Embrace the Art. Stop pawning yourselves off as Engineers.

The Engineer in Training Exam provided by every state in the United States is a comprehensive exam [8 hours] over your past 5 years that allows one to reduce the time it takes [under a Principle Engineer (Often mistaken as Professional Engineer)] to then qualify and apply to become a P.E., from 12 years under a P.E., licensed and bonded down to 4 years.

The lack of understanding the IT World has for the parent worlds of Engineering is staggering.

I never paid any attention to titles

[durdur]

I remember at one job I had to call up HR once and ask them what my title was. But it did gradually dawn on me that you don't want to be a title step lower than people who are equally or less skilled than you are. It does affect how others see you in the company and ultimately may affect your salary and promotion prospects, although I don't believe my own career has been derailed much by not caring.