Having read numerous comments on the topic of software becoming a distinct and regulated engineering profession, a rather anti-SE trend is evident. It seems as though the majority of the people are against such industry regulation. Why? My impression is that many are not engineers but would like the 'right' to label themselves as such -- this is evidenced by the recent dispute between MCSE holders and regulatory chapters. Are these comments the product of a general fear of being 'left behind' as the software industry matures into an engineering discipline?
Who do you suppose will be qualified to verify specifications? This is done using a variety of formal verification methods, often involving mathematical theorem provers. Should it be the artists? The computer scientists? How can that be when the artist does not have the computer knowledge of the software engineer and the computer scientist does not have the same level of formal mathematical training? The answer to this is, of course, software engineers will perform these tasks, though it may take some time to gain widespread acceptance. The concept is simple nonetheless.
Coincidentally, you fail to mention that the ACM's findings are dated July 17, 2000 -- as everyone knows, that is a long time in this industry. Notably, at least one Canadian university's SE program has since been accredited by the CEAB, and several others are currently under review. It is misleading to conclusively state that SE licensing has been denied.
Are you really a "software engineer"? If so, do you mind me asking where you got your degree in software engineering? I am currently aware of only a handful of schools offering an accredited SE program.
Your second point is valid in my opinion, but it's been a while since I've heard such patriotic BS. That first point was clearly generated by a moron lacking any sense of global perspective. Do you really believe that the USA is just 'being nice' and allowing Canada co-exist on the continent we all like call North America? I suspect that many Canadians mistakenly believe that all Americans are like you. Perhaps you could do your 50-state country a favor and not make posts like these.
It's true that someone like Paul can exist, and he may well be the best programmer alive, but there are two important differences:
1. software engineers and programmers do not perform the same jobs. Note that I use the term 'software engineer' in reference to the future influx of trained professionals into the industry.
2. Paul would be an exception. In general, one would not expect to meet many Paul's over the course of a software project or even an entire career.
The point is that if software is to be regarded as a true engineering discipline (and I believe it should), then we need to follow engineering practices. This includes accountability. Why does software come with a disclaimer these days? When you buy a new car, do you expect the manufacturer to tell you that a seat belt failure is not their fault? Or that if your new house falls down because of poor design that the engineering firm is not responsible? All of these issues are addressed when we begin to treat software as a branch of engineering.
I do agree with your viewpoint in the sense that the software industry does not readily follow 'conventional' practices, however, there is a fine distinction to be made here. While you may not require any formal university education to be a good game programmer, I don't believe the same logic extends to mission-critical software systems. In many cases, "mission-critical" actually means "life-critical". Do we want good but untrained people developing the software to which we entrust our lives? (Aircraft, nuclear reactor shutdown systems, chemical and biological detection systems..etc).
Technically MCSE doesn't qualify anybody as an 'engineer'. There is a specific regulation and approval process for all engineers of various disciplines. Obviously, this is to ensure public safety, and the same reasoning applies to software products as well. People's lives depend on correct software as much as any mechanical device or other safety critical application. It is for this reason that software should be regarded as a true engineering field and should be regulated appropriately.
Slashdot Mirror
Having read numerous comments on the topic of software becoming a distinct and regulated engineering profession, a rather anti-SE trend is evident. It seems as though the majority of the people are against such industry regulation. Why? My impression is that many are not engineers but would like the 'right' to label themselves as such -- this is evidenced by the recent dispute between MCSE holders and regulatory chapters. Are these comments the product of a general fear of being 'left behind' as the software industry matures into an engineering discipline?
Who do you suppose will be qualified to verify specifications? This is done using a variety of formal verification methods, often involving mathematical theorem provers. Should it be the artists? The computer scientists? How can that be when the artist does not have the computer knowledge of the software engineer and the computer scientist does not have the same level of formal mathematical training? The answer to this is, of course, software engineers will perform these tasks, though it may take some time to gain widespread acceptance. The concept is simple nonetheless.
Coincidentally, you fail to mention that the ACM's findings are dated July 17, 2000 -- as everyone knows, that is a long time in this industry. Notably, at least one Canadian university's SE program has since been accredited by the CEAB, and several others are currently under review. It is misleading to conclusively state that SE licensing has been denied.
Are you really a "software engineer"? If so, do you mind me asking where you got your degree in software engineering? I am currently aware of only a handful of schools offering an accredited SE program.
Your second point is valid in my opinion, but it's been a while since I've heard such patriotic BS. That first point was clearly generated by a moron lacking any sense of global perspective. Do you really believe that the USA is just 'being nice' and allowing Canada co-exist on the continent we all like call North America? I suspect that many Canadians mistakenly believe that all Americans are like you. Perhaps you could do your 50-state country a favor and not make posts like these.
It's true that someone like Paul can exist, and he may well be the best programmer alive, but there are two important differences: 1. software engineers and programmers do not perform the same jobs. Note that I use the term 'software engineer' in reference to the future influx of trained professionals into the industry. 2. Paul would be an exception. In general, one would not expect to meet many Paul's over the course of a software project or even an entire career. The point is that if software is to be regarded as a true engineering discipline (and I believe it should), then we need to follow engineering practices. This includes accountability. Why does software come with a disclaimer these days? When you buy a new car, do you expect the manufacturer to tell you that a seat belt failure is not their fault? Or that if your new house falls down because of poor design that the engineering firm is not responsible? All of these issues are addressed when we begin to treat software as a branch of engineering.
I do agree with your viewpoint in the sense that the software industry does not readily follow 'conventional' practices, however, there is a fine distinction to be made here. While you may not require any formal university education to be a good game programmer, I don't believe the same logic extends to mission-critical software systems. In many cases, "mission-critical" actually means "life-critical". Do we want good but untrained people developing the software to which we entrust our lives? (Aircraft, nuclear reactor shutdown systems, chemical and biological detection systems..etc).
Technically MCSE doesn't qualify anybody as an 'engineer'. There is a specific regulation and approval process for all engineers of various disciplines. Obviously, this is to ensure public safety, and the same reasoning applies to software products as well. People's lives depend on correct software as much as any mechanical device or other safety critical application. It is for this reason that software should be regarded as a true engineering field and should be regulated appropriately.