Tinder, a dating app, has recently updated its Terms of Service. Among minor bureaucratic modifications, one major change aims to battle impersonations. From now on, Tinder will ban web developers who claim to be 'engineers'. While backend- and other types of software developers seem to be unaffected, many believe the ToS will be amended soon to include those as well.
I still wouldn’t say software engineering is actual engineering.
You mean you wouldn’t expect a software engineer to understand the coefficient of thermal expansion of tungsten carbide in a gas lubricated piston/cylinder pneumatic deadweight calibration system?
Yeah, me either. But I would expect one to know how to research the documentation to find out what it meant.
Even though my job title has “engineer” in it, I don’t agree that it should be considered an area of engineering.
I wouldn’t even expect most of them to this kind of research, no. On top of that, I see “engineering” also carrying some type of accountability and responsibility. For example, civil engineering, there are often regulatory bodies, codes, and standards that engineers must adhere to, and they are legally responsible for the safety and integrity of their projects. While in the software side of things, standards and best practices are more loose. Unless you’re working in safety critical industries (automotive, aviation, etc…), the “accountability structure” is completely different, if existent at all. Calling themselves Software developer or some derivate would make much more from my point of view.
The software and systems engineers in my field are responsible for ensuring systems comply with industry best practices, compliant with NIST, and STIG hardened. If they sign off on a systems design for production deployment their ass is most assuredly on the line. I will agree that the legal part is fuzzier since it’s ultimately the agency head that is legally responsible, which gets delegated to an authorizing official, who depends on a security compliance inspector, who evaluates the information system security engineers system/design. While generally lives are not currently on the line for most information systems, the buck does stop at the engineers desk in my line of work. For complex interconnected systems it is not uncommon to have a security architect responsible for the secure integration of disparate systems/components who relies on design documentation from the engineers. While not a perfectly compatible definition to a licensed engineer, it provides a logical framework that makes sense in the associated application and their is a perfectly clear enough division, currently, between careers that it doesn’t create confusion. A licensed professional engineer will most certainly be titled appropriately and clearly. An information systems engineer or software engineer will likely hold advanced certifications but will not be making false claims as a PE, no PE is going to accidentally apply to be a systems/software engineer. The whole discussion is a solution looking for a problem. A PE is distinguished well above an engineering job title by anybody that is anybody. Theirs a disappointing number of people that think everybody in the Air Force is a pilot, worrying about the uninformed portion of the population is pointless. Regulatory checks and balances exist. No information system/software engineer is going to be designing/approving a bridge that actually gets built without also being a PE. All that said, my boss is actually a PE certified systems architect with a CS degree who worked as an ISSE in his last role (we are in a CISA critical infrastructure sector).
And software development isn’t actually development. They don’t build houses!
Did you mean to say software architecture?
What about software painting ?
Why? Excited to hear another internet hot take
I think the idea is, most people could build a doghouse with no training, but you need planning and education to plan/build a skyscraper. If you want to write your own app at home, maybe no software planning is really required. Keep nailing in workarounds. But if you want to build a huge system, you need to do a bit more than workarounds. You need a good plan from the start to make it all efficient and in a manner others can contribute to the code base.
That said, I feel like just having workarounds is really common even in large industry settings. Maybe I’m wrong though. I’m more of a home doghouse builder type myself.
Anyone can build a bridge. Only an engineer can build a bridge that barely stands.
In the same way, the fact that one built a large online platform, that doesn’t necessarily mean it was built with minimal ressources and without taking past or future risk.
Engineering is, as a profession, specifically the application of scientific principles to solve problems the right way, the first time, that is to say efficiently, and with minimal risk.
The fact that one codes, or wields a wrench, or operates a C&C machine does not mean one is applying science to solve problems efficiently and managing risk. These are entirely different skills and professions.