Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Programmers Be Certified?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the can-I-see-you-license-and-registration dept.

An anonymous reader wrote in to send us For Coders, a Code of Conduct (from the NYT so free registration is required). It says that an engineer needs a license to work on a bridge, but programmers work unlicensed all the time. What do you think?

2 of 427 comments (clear)

  1. Yes, for PUBLIC projects concerning HUMAN SAFETY by Moeses · · Score: 5

    There are different arena's one can code in. No one is going to die if their word processor crashes. In such a situation one is free to choose another word processor.

    If a service is being contracted for the people from a government and human health issues are at hand then the people have a right to require that the engineer, whether he be a civil engineer or a software engineer, has proven to them that he can complete the task with safety and has the skills to show them the numbers that make it safe.

    This is akin to verifying the correctness of code (mathematically proving that it cannot fail), an incredably extensive and expensive process. But sometimes it needs to be done. An exam such as the Professional Engineer exam is an attempt at making sure the people who work on these projects that affect the public know when and how to do this.

    Testing code relentlessly is one thing, verifiying it's correctness is another.

    They each have their arena.

    Moeses

  2. Certify s/w architects, not programmers by Big+Red · · Score: 5

    Equating "coders" and construction engineers is not the right comparison. The programmer is more akin to the person pouring the concrete per a good blueprint. When I have seen software projects fail, it was traceable to ill-defined requirements, poor system engineering, or inadequate software architecture. What is needed is a better method of defining a blueprint for software.

    Most schools do not teach the software lifecycle. We do not need to license people in C, C++, Java, etc. We need to train/certify people in understanding requirements and designing software that meet these requirements (instead of meeting the latest trend or technology). We also need to better define the equivalent of a blueprint for software. We should settle on a standard (e.g. UML although not necessary so o-o geared) and then train/certify people on that standard. This will not be subject to the frequent technology turnover seen for implementation. Part of training must include how to form a test plan based on the requirements. Then the output of the programmers can be "certified" against the requirements, this being the proper test for the programmer's work.

    The main failure of MS Windows is to concentrate on "neat" GUI features (a "trend") instead of basic requirements like availability and reliability. There is no word-processing requirement for a help window to grow from/fade to a corner of the window.

    The success of Linux starts from the focus on basic requirements. Linus starting writing what he needed, not something he thought someone might consider "neat". The last major requirement for Linux is operability, esp. ease of use for the less technical. The challenge in meeting this is that it is as not much of a requirement for the people implementing it.