"Colin W Kingsbury" wrote in message
ink.net...
Quite so! Using the title "Engineer" is granted by a state license and I
know of no states that grant a "Software Engineer" license. I work with
dozens of civil and other (real...licensed) engineers and each one has a
certificate or two on their wall. Many are incensesd by programmers
using
the term and many are just amused given the haphazard way most software
is
developed.
Yes, and we all know that having a government-issued license is such a
strong indicator of quality.
Non-sequitur.
Licensing is what happens when an industry
matures and transitions from an entrepreneurial to a guild mindset.
It's also what happens, hopefully, when the software industry matures from
bedroom hackers with very light complexity to CMM processes and high levels
of complexity.
Did John
Augustus Roebling have a license?
Nope and neither did the guys who designed and built the Tacoma Narrows
Bridge IIRC. ANd neither did the guys who built the pyramids.
Having led many software projects, I will tell you that the "engineers"
are
usually the ones most incensed by taking shortcuts in quality. The fact is
that the market has traditionally rewarded those who got to market first
with the most features rather than those who made the least buggy
software.
If Windows crashs while surfing the net, it's annoying. When a building or a
bridge collapses, or an ariplane crashes due to mechanical failure, people
die. Think of the WTC and how long the towers stood after taking hits from
fuel laden airplanes.
It costs a *lot* to build very high-quality software. If the market would
tolerate buildings that collapsed 10% of the time but cost 90% less to
build, we'd see buildings falling down as often as Windows crashes.
And the long range costs of software done haphazzardly is...what?
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow, CE
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
|