> In fact, in some Canadian provinces, titles in computing such as “software engineer,” “computer engineer,” and others containing “engineer” are (in principle) reserved for people licensed as engineers by the provincial engineering regulator.
A most rational stance. One we should enforce here in the US.
Edit: Yes, I'm arguing that Software Engineer should be a licensed profession, but programmer shouldn't, and would be a fine substitution in the cases where you didn't need rigor.
--
If I were an engineer, there's no way I would trust any interface to a control system for a water purification plant that connected to the internet and allowed for ingress of control. Just as an example.
The OPM hack of 2015[1] is the worst case, in terms of national security, that clearly proves no Engineers were involved in the design of their computer system. Ingress of control should be absolutely prohibited, and it wasn't. I don't know why that database was ever put into a computer, instead of filing cabinets in a vault, nor why it was ever connected to any other system, and not completely air-gapped in said vault, with manual controlled exfiltration of data upon request.
The difference is for others than "engineers" (software developers), where there is an expectation of certain quality when they hear someone call themselves "engineer". Just like the title "doctor" carries a certain expectation.
"Doctor" is a funny one because physicians originally latched onto the term to try and give themselves the credibility where they previously had none. Its use in medicine is in a lot of ways similar to the software situation.
Is it "language police" that if you say "bomb" on an airplane, people might take that very seriously and you might get in legal trouble? Is that people's personal "language preference" or might there be some other implication behind some of the words in some contexts?
mikewarot · · focus · HN ↗
A most rational stance. One we should enforce here in the US.
Edit: Yes, I'm arguing that Software Engineer should be a licensed profession, but programmer shouldn't, and would be a fine substitution in the cases where you didn't need rigor.
--
If I were an engineer, there's no way I would trust any interface to a control system for a water purification plant that connected to the internet and allowed for ingress of control. Just as an example.
The OPM hack of 2015[1] is the worst case, in terms of national security, that clearly proves no Engineers were involved in the design of their computer system. Ingress of control should be absolutely prohibited, and it wasn't. I don't know why that database was ever put into a computer, instead of filing cabinets in a vault, nor why it was ever connected to any other system, and not completely air-gapped in said vault, with manual controlled exfiltration of data upon request.
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Office_of_Personnel_Manag...
SenHeng · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
win311fwg · · focus · HN ↗
the__alchemist · · focus · HN ↗
nonethewiser · · focus · HN ↗
It seems reasonable to want licensure on the belief that it raises quality.
It seems unreasonable to expect people to conform to your language preferences.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
Is it "language police" that if you say "bomb" on an airplane, people might take that very seriously and you might get in legal trouble? Is that people's personal "language preference" or might there be some other implication behind some of the words in some contexts?
necovek · · focus · HN ↗
It's not about the word itself, it is about what it represents and the risk profile if it's true (nowhere to run to).