Exactly right. There are plenty of "engineers" doing professional engineering type work that aren't licensed and are happy to do so. They just don't delude themselves by calling themselves "engineers".
Frankly, I think the use of the term engineer by software designers is done specifically to gain some sort of instant credibility on the backs of a profession that is held to task far more than the software industry.
Why are programmers not willing to seperate the ones amongst themselves willing to accept responsibility for what they do, and those that would rather just go to work every day. Neither is better than the other.
I would think that some software designers would welcome the opportunity to distinguish themselves from the rest.
"Would the public accept much more expensive software that was also much more secure?"
Who said professional engineers make more money?;^)
"Did anyone get sued for the two shuttle crashes?"
I imagine neither you or I have any idea who is being disciplined, but the stories I've been seeing in the news are that the engineers warned management that there was a problem and they ignored them. If the reverse was true, and an engineer covered up a problem (which is as close to unthinkable as you're going to ever encounter), I'm sure there would be discipline and/or lawsuits. And it happens ALL the time. I can't work in Ontario without $1M professional liability insurance. How many programmers can say that?
"If my NVidia graphics card doesn't display a page right and my doctor misreads a chart, is there some engineer at Nvidia who is going to be liable?"
And this is where the issue matters. The point is, every other piece of equipment in a hospital is designed and certified by a professional engineer, why are computers and software exempt? I, for one, would want to know that somebody competent wrote those drivers and was held to task by a governing body and legislation.
"Also, your standard civil engineer is dealing basically with Newton's laws. To verify structural soundness, they apply a bunch of equations to their design and see what happens. There is no equivalent for computer science."
This I agree with. However, I've always felt that designing a computer program is very similar to engineering methods. You define a problem, develope a solution, debug it (this is a litle off topic though).
But, I'm not talking about every single programmer becoming licensed. In fact, I have no doubt that when faced with the overwhelming effort it takes to become an engineer, 90% would realize they are happy to be code monkeys. The other 10% would realize they are the type that want more responsibility and to work on more critical things. These would be the ones chosen to oversee critical items like your hospital equipment and fire safety equipment, and aircraft and space shuttle systems.
"The indemnity of the corporations is what matters, not the indemnity of individuals."
There is no doubt about this. However, once is't legislated that you need a professional designation to work in certain software areas, you will certainly find that the quality of work goes up drastically, because you won't be able to easily find professional software engineers willing to risk their license and career just to meet a deadline or save money. That's the way it works in my profession. And I've seen the other side of it as well, you can't compare engineers to the present definition of programmers.
"This question could also be applied to those of us that are A/V "engineers" as well as coders/software "engineers"."
In Canada, the laws are clear that using the term "engineer" is only illegal where the general public might believe that the "engineer" in question might actually be practicing "professional engineering".
Clearly this isn't the case for an audio engineer or a sanitation engineer, etc. But certain areas of software design related to public safety DEFINITELY overlap with professional engineering.
That's why this issue is important: to differentiate the programmers that must be held responsible for their work compared to those who are happy as every day programmers.
Fine, but for an electrical engineer to work on the electrical systems for a building, you need to be licensed.
A better analogy would be comparing that engineer to the software designer who, for instance, writes the code for a fire safty system.
Wrong. The biggest problem is while our society becomes more and more technology dependent, the general public's interpretation of the difference between a chemical engineer and an MCSE will become clouded.
I personally GUARANTEE you there wouldn't be so many security flaws in software today if software coders were held to the same type of liabilty a professional engineer is.
We are truly approaching a moment of truth on this subject.
Speaking as a professional engineer, who knows what it takes to become an engineer and knows the standards you are held to as an engineer, and also as a programmer, I struggle with this issue all the time.
The simple answer is, if you want to be an engineer , become one. Engineering is a lot more than having technical knowledge. It's about professional standards and making sure critical issues that involve public safety are dealt with by people that are answerable for their actions.
I, for one, want to know that the programmer that worked on the fly-by-wire systems on that Airbus A300 I might be flying on was monitored and licensed by a legitimate professional body regulated by state (provincial) and/or national legislation.
It would interesting to find out if this interferes with X-10 powerline carrier technology.
It would be more interesting to find out if it interferes, regardless of whether you subscribe to the hydro line high speed Internet service or not.
The exact same story surfaced here in Toronto about 3 or 4 months ago. The city purchased far more licenses than were required (I can't remember the value of the extra licenses, but it was definitely into the millions of dollars).
Two incidents are hardly damning, but you have to wonder if there is any misrepresentation going on.
IMO, this was very forseeable. Obviously this will offend a lot of people, but I personally think today's so-called tech skills have been grossly overvalued.
How many people here know of (or are) the all too typical arrogant MIS manager, that really knows nothing about nothing, but since the general public has been convinced that the computer industry is so scary and complex, these people are held to God-like status.
Let's be honest: how much do you really think you learned in your 3 month MCSE program? I've looked through the books. Believe me: not much.
For example, a professional engineer in the United States must complete a minimum 4 year accredited engineering program, taking math courses harder than the math students' courses and science
cources harder than...(you get the idea). Next comes 5 years of working experience, then comes two gruelling separate 8 hour exams. For all that , you can call yourself an engineer.
Obviously similar stories can be told in other traditional professions. Now all of a sudden you think you're a "professional" because you took those ridiculously easy Cisco exams? Please.
Please don't think I'm painting everyone here with the same brush, obviously there are many talented people in the IT area.
Not eveyone needs a license.
Only those persons that are knee deep in areas that directly affect public safety would require certification. And only those people who want to go the extra step and take on the extra responsibility would pursue the license.
Every other professional field has tiers of responsibility: why is software special?
Yes, I do realize this, but you may not realize that real world experience is part of the engineering certification process.
Most states require five years before you call yourself an engineer.
In Canada it's four (most places).
This topic will have huge ramifications.
Too many people call themselves engineers these days.
It wasn't a problem in the past because the general public could differentiate between a "custodial engineer" and a professional engineer.
Now, professional engineering is becoming blurred by more and more technical types calling themselves engineers, without even close to the training and standards a professional engineer is held to.
I'm not familiar with American laws, but in Canada, you are not allowed to call yourself an engineer without a professional license. The Canadian professional engineering bodies have successfully stopped Microsoft, Cisco and others from calling their technicians "engineers".
"Software engineering" is the most dangerouse of all, and in my opinion, the most needing of the professional designation, if only to apply appropriate training standards, ethics and liability.
Think about it: don't you want to know that the guy who designed the fly-by-wire software for your 767 or A300 knew what he was doing?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly right. There are plenty of "engineers" doing professional engineering type work that aren't licensed and are happy to do so. They just don't delude themselves by calling themselves "engineers".
Frankly, I think the use of the term engineer by software designers is done specifically to gain some sort of instant credibility on the backs of a profession that is held to task far more than the software industry.
Why are programmers not willing to seperate the ones amongst themselves willing to accept responsibility for what they do, and those that would rather just go to work every day. Neither is better than the other.
I would think that some software designers would welcome the opportunity to distinguish themselves from the rest.
"Would the public accept much more expensive software that was also much more secure?"
;^)
Who said professional engineers make more money?
"Did anyone get sued for the two shuttle crashes?"
I imagine neither you or I have any idea who is being disciplined, but the stories I've been seeing in the news are that the engineers warned
management that there was a problem and they ignored them. If the reverse was true, and an engineer covered up a problem (which is as close to unthinkable as you're going to ever encounter), I'm sure there would be discipline and/or lawsuits. And it happens ALL the time. I can't work in Ontario without $1M professional liability insurance. How many programmers can say that?
"If my NVidia graphics card doesn't display a page right and my doctor misreads a chart, is there some engineer at Nvidia who is going to be liable?"
And this is where the issue matters. The point is, every other piece of equipment in a hospital is designed and certified by a professional engineer, why are computers and software exempt? I, for one, would want to know that somebody competent wrote those drivers and was held to task by a governing body and legislation.
"Also, your standard civil engineer is dealing basically with Newton's laws. To verify structural soundness, they apply a bunch of equations to their design and see what happens. There is no equivalent for computer science."
This I agree with. However, I've always felt that designing a computer program is very similar to engineering methods. You define a problem, develope a solution, debug it (this is a litle off topic though).
But, I'm not talking about every single programmer becoming licensed. In fact, I have no doubt that when faced with the overwhelming effort it takes to become an engineer, 90% would realize they are happy to be code monkeys. The other 10% would realize they are the type that want more responsibility and to work on more critical things. These would be the ones chosen to oversee critical items like your hospital equipment and fire safety equipment, and aircraft and space shuttle systems.
"The indemnity of the corporations is what matters, not the indemnity of individuals."
There is no doubt about this. However, once is't legislated that you need a professional designation to work in certain software areas, you will certainly find that the quality of work goes up drastically, because you won't be able to easily find professional software engineers willing to risk their license and career just to meet a deadline or save money. That's the way it works in my profession. And I've seen the other side of it as well, you can't compare engineers to the present definition of programmers.
"This question could also be applied to those of us that are A/V "engineers" as well as coders/software "engineers"." In Canada, the laws are clear that using the term "engineer" is only illegal where the general public might believe that the "engineer" in question might actually be practicing "professional engineering". Clearly this isn't the case for an audio engineer or a sanitation engineer, etc. But certain areas of software design related to public safety DEFINITELY overlap with professional engineering. That's why this issue is important: to differentiate the programmers that must be held responsible for their work compared to those who are happy as every day programmers.
Fine, but for an electrical engineer to work on the electrical systems for a building, you need to be licensed. A better analogy would be comparing that engineer to the software designer who, for instance, writes the code for a fire safty system.
Wrong. The biggest problem is while our society becomes more and more technology dependent, the general public's interpretation of the difference between a chemical engineer and an MCSE will become clouded. I personally GUARANTEE you there wouldn't be so many security flaws in software today if software coders were held to the same type of liabilty a professional engineer is.
We are truly approaching a moment of truth on this subject. Speaking as a professional engineer, who knows what it takes to become an engineer and knows the standards you are held to as an engineer, and also as a programmer, I struggle with this issue all the time. The simple answer is, if you want to be an engineer , become one. Engineering is a lot more than having technical knowledge. It's about professional standards and making sure critical issues that involve public safety are dealt with by people that are answerable for their actions. I, for one, want to know that the programmer that worked on the fly-by-wire systems on that Airbus A300 I might be flying on was monitored and licensed by a legitimate professional body regulated by state (provincial) and/or national legislation.
It would interesting to find out if this interferes with X-10 powerline carrier technology. It would be more interesting to find out if it interferes, regardless of whether you subscribe to the hydro line high speed Internet service or not.
The exact same story surfaced here in Toronto about 3 or 4 months ago. The city purchased far more licenses than were required (I can't remember the value of the extra licenses, but it was definitely into the millions of dollars). Two incidents are hardly damning, but you have to wonder if there is any misrepresentation going on.
IMO, this was very forseeable. Obviously this will offend a lot of people, but I personally think today's so-called tech skills have been grossly overvalued. How many people here know of (or are) the all too typical arrogant MIS manager, that really knows nothing about nothing, but since the general public has been convinced that the computer industry is so scary and complex, these people are held to God-like status. Let's be honest: how much do you really think you learned in your 3 month MCSE program? I've looked through the books. Believe me: not much. For example, a professional engineer in the United States must complete a minimum 4 year accredited engineering program, taking math courses harder than the math students' courses and science cources harder than...(you get the idea). Next comes 5 years of working experience, then comes two gruelling separate 8 hour exams. For all that , you can call yourself an engineer. Obviously similar stories can be told in other traditional professions. Now all of a sudden you think you're a "professional" because you took those ridiculously easy Cisco exams? Please. Please don't think I'm painting everyone here with the same brush, obviously there are many talented people in the IT area.
Not eveyone needs a license. Only those persons that are knee deep in areas that directly affect public safety would require certification. And only those people who want to go the extra step and take on the extra responsibility would pursue the license. Every other professional field has tiers of responsibility: why is software special?
Yes, I do realize this, but you may not realize that real world experience is part of the engineering certification process. Most states require five years before you call yourself an engineer. In Canada it's four (most places).
This topic will have huge ramifications. Too many people call themselves engineers these days. It wasn't a problem in the past because the general public could differentiate between a "custodial engineer" and a professional engineer. Now, professional engineering is becoming blurred by more and more technical types calling themselves engineers, without even close to the training and standards a professional engineer is held to. I'm not familiar with American laws, but in Canada, you are not allowed to call yourself an engineer without a professional license. The Canadian professional engineering bodies have successfully stopped Microsoft, Cisco and others from calling their technicians "engineers". "Software engineering" is the most dangerouse of all, and in my opinion, the most needing of the professional designation, if only to apply appropriate training standards, ethics and liability. Think about it: don't you want to know that the guy who designed the fly-by-wire software for your 767 or A300 knew what he was doing?