Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Canada Software Technology

Is a 'Software Engineer' An Engineer? Alberta Regulator Says No, Riling the Province's Tech Sector (theglobeandmail.com) 258

Alberta's engineering regulator is in a fight with the province's technology sector, insisting anyone with the title "software engineer" must hold a permit -- and pay fees for that right. The Globe and Mail reports: The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), has asked a court to order one of the province's leading software companies, Octopusapp, known as Jobber, to stop using the term "engineer" in job titles and postings unless it gets a permit from the regulator. That has caused an uproar in Alberta's tech sector. On Friday, the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI) published an open letter signed by chief executive officers of 32 Alberta tech companies, including Jobber's Sam Pillar, calling on Premier Danielle Smith to stop "regulator overreach" by APEGA.

The letter says APEGA's "aggressive position" would result in "onerous, restrictive and unnecessary certification requirements" for developers, and harm companies' ability to compete for talent. "If we cannot effectively compete for the best employees while headquartered in Alberta, we must seriously consider whether this is a place where our companies can succeed,â states the letter signed by CEOs of Benevity, Symend, Neo Financial Technologies and others. CCI president Benjamin Bergen said he hoped Ms. Smith, who pledged to cut red tape while campaigning to lead the United Conservative Party, would take action "because this is really a red tape issue. It is the only jurisdiction globally that is pushing this. It's making Alberta uncompetitive in the tech sector."

APEGA and Canada's 11 other provincial and territorial engineering regulators have complained for years about companies or individuals who use the titles "software engineer" and "computer engineer," arguing they are prohibited from doing so. In July, Engineers Canada, which represents the regulators, issued a joint statement calling for individuals to be prohibited from using the offending titles unless they are licensed as engineers. "Professional engineers are held to high professional and ethical standards and work in the public interest," it said. "The public places a high degree of trust in the profession and these layers of accountability and transparency help keep Canadians safe." The regulators are mandated to enforce their relative statutes and have sporadically taken legal action to protect their turf. [...] Provincial and territorial laws regulating engineers vary. Alberta's Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act states no individual, corporation or partnership can use the word "engineer" in a job title unless they are "a professional engineer, licensee or permit holder entitled to engage in the practice of engineering."
A spokesperson for Alberta labour minister Kaycee Madu said in an e-mail the government would work with the parties to resolve the issue, adding: "We are concerned by any regulations that impede our competitiveness in the world skilled-labour market."

Meanwhile, Erum Afsar, director of enforcement with APEGA, said in an interview: "What we are doing is regulating what the government has legislated us to do. If you're using that title, you should be registered with APEGA."

Further reading: Oregon Fines Man For Writing a Complaint Email Stating 'I Am An Engineer'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is a 'Software Engineer' An Engineer? Alberta Regulator Says No, Riling the Province's Tech Sector

Comments Filter:
  • by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @09:07PM (#62967755)
    Why are software *engineers* exempt.
    • by dogsbreath ( 730413 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @11:12PM (#62967961)

      Usually the differentiator is the term "Professional Engineer" (North America) or "Chartered Engineer" (UK) vs "engineer". In the UK anyone can call themselves an "engineer" and my experience back in the 80s was an engineer often held a wrench in greasy hands and was quite adept at kicking heavy metal obects.

      Professional Engineers have to provide some proof of competence to hold the title and a P.Eng is required to sign off on certain things like bridge and building designs. This is generally a good thing and usually prevents shit from falling over randomly.

      Problem with APEGA's point of view is that there are no Professional Engineering standards to meet in order to be called a Professional Software Engineer. There is no such thing as far as I know, although there has been a lot of hand wringing and fretful talk about developing something to protect the public from fly by night coders. Basically this means that APEGA is just in a territorial pissing match over the word "engineer".

      I believe that in the UK they long ago determined that "engineer" is such a common word in the language that by itself the term could not be regulated.

      APEGA should be limited to regulating the Professional level only and should do something useful instead of language policing IMHO.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ukoda ( 537183 )
        Great answer. I had an online argument with someone about this exact point. I expressed that anyone can call themselves an engineer as long as they are not falsely claim a qualification they don't hold. I call myself an Embedded Systems Engineer and hold a New Zealand Certificate of Engineering but I don't go around putting NZCE on my business cards or email signature as it means bugger all to most people. This guy tried to prove I was not an engineer because I could not answer questions about stresses
        • by Sique ( 173459 )
          In the German speaking world, calling yourself an engineer (Ingenieur) is fraudulent if you aren't qualified by an engineering exam or at least being certified by the Chamber of Commerce (only in Austria). A software engineer here is called Programmierer (programmer) if not qualified otherwise.
          • by ukoda ( 537183 )
            The core problem with that is you have then limited what you can be engineer of to what exams are available, limiting the utility of language. The fraudulent determination should be limited to misrepresentation, not the simple use of a generic word. This is why in the countries I am familiar with it can only become fraudulent when combined with a phrase imply qualification or certification, such Practicing or Certified etc. So here Software Engineer describes a role and skill set, not a qualification. O
            • by Sique ( 173459 )

              The core problem with that is you have then limited what you can be engineer of to what exams are available, limiting the utility of language.

              That's exactly the reasoning behind it. You can only be an engineer of something that is clearly defined, mature, and where we have a common understanding of the requirements for both the product and the job. You can't just hand wave an engineering field out of thin air.

              Until the field has settled, and there are several examples and some experience with it, there are standards to adhere to and known limits of applicability, you are an inventor, an experimenter or a tinkerer, but not an engineer. And yes,

        • That's because in NZ 'engineer' is not a protected term, so everything you say is true culturally. Plenty of countries protect the term engineer the same way in NZ people cannot just claim to be a doctor or a lawyer.

          I've personally never liked the term software engineer that much just because even very low skilled developers will still call themselves that, meaning the term becomes no different from programmer, even if no design or engineering is taking place.

          The best compromise I think is kind of as you su

      • There was a lawsuit about this many years ago, which APEGA lost. It sounds like there are new people there who donâ(TM)t know about it. I am a semi-retired engineer and never joined APEGA, because they were so FOS.
      • I believe that in the UK they long ago determined that "engineer" is such a common word in the language that by itself the term could not be regulated.

        Some other countries don't focus on the term as much as the activity. The question is: Is a Software Engineer, performing an engineering activity. In Queensland Australia the BPEQ define "Information Telecommunications and Electronics" a form of engineering, meaning that engaging in that activity requires you to be a registered professional engineer.

        The rule is you can call yourself an engineer if you want, but if you engage in a certain activity then registration (or at least oversight from a registered pr

    • I have never directed any trains. Choo! Choo! All aboard. I am the engineer!

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      Many software companies provide disclaimers in the licensing of the software making it next to impossible to sue the company for just about anything serious.

      But if the legislation is changed in a way that makes software companies responsible for data loss and damages then it can filter down to the engineers.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Although there are efforts in Europe to change that and they are sorely needed. Too much software is not even remotely conforming to the state-of-the-art. That includes stuff from really large vendors. It is high time to require software engineers to produce results that are worthy of being called engineered. And to make vendors that let unqualified personnel write software liable for any and all defects in there.

  • by ironicsky ( 569792 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @09:08PM (#62967761) Journal

    Train "Human Fail Safes" aren't engineers either, but have the title "Locomotive Engineer" as well, but require no formal training in electrical or mechanical engineering.

    • They also have a tremendous amount of legal liability. Why in God's good name anyone would want that title who hasn't earned it or had it thrust upon them is beyond me.

      I am perfectly content with being called a programmer.
      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        They want the prestige without the responsibility.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        They also have a tremendous amount of legal liability. Why in God's good name anyone would want that title who hasn't earned it or had it thrust upon them is beyond me. I am perfectly content with being called a programmer.

        It is not that about whether anybody really wants that. It is that it is sorely needed to end the mess in software. All other engineering disciplines have done it and only after having done it did things get better. See collapsing bridges and buildings, steam engines blowing up, electrical wiring killing people, etc. Software is a technological product and must go that way as well. It is far too critical to allow it to remain in its current, really bad state. Also remember that it is not all bad. As soon as

    • I'm sure they'll want their pound of flesh from them too.

    • correct me if I'm wrong but the word engineer up until designers claimed it as their own meant to be the person responsible for keeping the fire going in steam locomotives. They tossed coal into the boiler, kept the engine going. Thus engineer.

      I'm not sure how designers of buildings, mechanical parts etc took over the word.

  • by kalieaire ( 586092 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @09:19PM (#62967787)
    Oregon had a similar issue up until a court ruled that 1st amendment rights, afford by the us constitution, allowed anyone to call themselves an engineer. Whether someone was qualified for a specific task, that's a completely different question. Ideally confirmed or verified during the interview process. :P
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Thank goodness Canada doesn't have a similar right.

      That said, there is precedent for the use of the term 'engineer' when qualified, as in a locomotive engineer. Or the use of the title for a company position. Which in some states is exempt from the professional registration requirement. So I guess calling someone a software engineer isn't too much of a stretch. Should such an exemption not exist, even for employees working on company products, then perhaps the term could be restricted to those with the req

    • "I am an engineer." -- Something anyone can say.

      "I have an engineering degree from <respected university>." -- Something fewer people can say.

    • by OneOfMany07 ( 4921667 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @11:51PM (#62968009)

      https://www.theregister.com/20... [theregister.com]

      "Oregon can't stop people from calling themselves engineers, judge rules in Traffic-Light-Math-Gate"

      Licensing red-tape violate First Amendment, says court in battle over timing algorithm

      Oregon's regulations stopping people in the US state from referring to themselves as engineers are unconstitutional, a federal magistrate judge has ruled.

      The decision was sought by Mats Järlström, a Swedish electronics engineer living in Oregon, who was fined in 2016 for calling himself an engineer in correspondence with state officials and doing math. ...

    • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday October 15, 2022 @02:49AM (#62968183) Journal

      Oregon had a similar issue up until a court ruled that 1st amendment rights, afford by the us constitution, allowed anyone to call themselves an engineer.

      Does that mean everyone has first amendment rights to call themselves a medical doctor?

      • by pahles ( 701275 )
        No, it doesn't.

        a court ruled that 1st amendment rights, afford by the us constitution, allowed anyone to call themselves an engineer

        Learn to read.

        • Learn to read.

          Oh gosh there's no way a court ruling on whether the first amendment overrides protected job titles could be extended to other jobs.

          Learn to think.

    • I wonder what the reasoning was in that court case. The 1st amendment doesn't just allow me to claim to be a lawyer, for example.

      • by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Saturday October 15, 2022 @06:44AM (#62968417)

        The context was a person writing a letter to the State commenting on traffic signal programming, and signing the letter as an engineer. The licensing board attempted to fine the person. He was, in fact, a qualified engineer who wasn't working as an engineer, and didn't have State licensing, though that was not relevant to the case. The court ruled that since the speech didn't actually have to do with him working as engineer (he wasn't applying for a job without a license, or any similar thing) that it didn't matter if he was an engineer or not, he could call himself one if he wanted.

        It was a major smack-down to the licensing board; the judge could have merely ruled that the guy had an engineering degree, and wasn't applying to work, so it was ok. But citing the 1st Amendment, instead of the facts of the case, produced a major curtailment in the enforcement actions of the licensing board. Now, they can only fine people who are actually trying to do the work without a license, instead of anybody who uses the word.

        Prior to the ruling there was the strange situation where software engineers could get a software engineering degree in the State, and list it on their resume, but since software engineering isn't one of the types of engineering regulated by the State, they couldn't call themselves an engineer. Now, there is no such problem.

        And you can call yourself a lawyer, as long as you're not giving legal advice at the same time, or asking for payment for some service that relates to being a lawyer. For example, you could give yourself the title Plot Lawyer and sell editing services.

    • Ideally confirmed or verified during the interview process. :P

      I hope you don't mean the company interview process. That's not ideal in any sense of the word. "Mr Dangerous Idiot" can design something that kills someone, get fired and then make it through an interview process at the next job fresh off his liability lawsuit and kill the next person.

      Many engineering associations around the world don't focus on the title, but rather the activity. They define what is engineering (driving a train is not engineering), and then say that people undertaking engineering need to

  • by spaceyhackerlady ( 462530 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @09:27PM (#62967793)

    A few years ago my employers had ideas about setting up shop in Alberta, and with "Engineering" in the company name we promptly got a cease and desist letter from the nice APEGA folks claiming exclusive rights to the word "engineer" in the province.

    The powers-that-be changed their mind before anything more happened.

    ...laura

  • Even though like most I consider myself a software engineer, I have to say I agree that maybe engineering should be locked down to a more rigorous definition.

    The real problem is that I don't think a traditional engineering degree is even possible for software engineering yet, not in the same way a "real" engineer can be sure something will work and have guaranteed levels of durability. Well, maybe firmware software engineers... but not the rest of us.

    However this particular case really sound more like a sh

    • by narcc ( 412956 )

      Like most? Not even close. You'd have to be either incredibly arrogant or incredibly ignorant to call yourself a "software engineer". I'm absolutely disgusted every time I see someone describe themselves that way. It's absolutely disgraceful.

      There is nothing that programmers do that is even remotely like engineering.

      The real problem is that I don't think

      What you think doesn't matter. You're a programmer that has, for years, pretended to be an engineer.

      • There is nothing that programmers do that is even remotely like engineering.

        Ya but I can npm install engineering-package

        Also leftpad

    • by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

      One problem with building software that won't fail is its interconnectedness - the ability for one part's failure to propagate to another part. Imagine if a bridge's anti-collision lights failing could cause the bridge deck to fall. Structural engineers don't have that problem.

      Another problem is the reliance on third-party software. It simply costs too much to develop everything in-house, but the moment you rely on another is when you give up any correctness guarantees. Nobody's willing to sell you an OS th

  • ... who use the titles "software engineer" and "computer engineer,"

    Let's also forbid "domestic engineer", used to make the position of house-boy (who lives in a boy-house, seriously), cleaning-staff supervisor and wife sound important. The word engineer suggests some level of training, although several jobs have become so common that additional training is no longer necessary.

    • by ukoda ( 537183 )
      To me engineering is a logical approach to a problem, the training part is implied. The thing is people form their own judgement about how much skill and training a given type of engineering requires. For a structural engineer you would expect advanced training and when those skills are applied to something where injury or death is a concern then you would additionally expect there to be a licensing body involved. People don't hold the same expectations of a domestic engineer but if they are going to cal
  • by localroger ( 258128 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @09:54PM (#62967835) Homepage
    This is not just an Alberta thing. I think Microsoft even had an issue with using the word "engineer" to describe people who had passed some of their accreditation courses because it wasn't actually an engineering certification. And there are legit reasons for being picky about it when you are building bridges and skyscrapers. But we aren't used to thinking in those terms about software. Part of me thinks that maybe that has been a problem and why so much software is so wonky, and part of me knows it would be a clusterfuck trying to implement anything like that for software.
    • by x0ra ( 1249540 )
      OOTH, it's not as if modern engineer certified building / bridges were collapsing a few years in their lifespan, oh... nevermind...
      • by narcc ( 412956 )

        Yeah, you can only trust those shifty engineers like ~99.99999% of the time. Totally worthless. Might was well let any idiot build bridges.

        What's wrong with you?

      • by ukoda ( 537183 )
        OOTH: Order Of The Hammer (World of Warcraft guild)?
  • This has happened in Oregon, as previously stated. I think the upshot is that PEs are twats. I've met several and I've never come across more overinflated, self-important arseholes than PEs. Well, neurosurgeons are up there, too.

    Tell them to shut up and sit down.

    • by ukoda ( 537183 )
      I have only communicated with one. Yes, he was a first class certified twat. He implied that there is only one type of engineer, structural engineers. No other type of engineer could exist as they would not meet his super narrow definition of an engineer. He did not like having a dictionary definition of an engineer quoted to him, really went off the deep end. Yea, a real dick. You can't tell them to sit down and shut up as they can't hear you over their own voice.
  • Dr. ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @10:26PM (#62967877) Homepage Journal

    so is software a question of engineering or architecture or design or maybe there are software doctors or software lawyers or software politicians or software carpenters or softaware economists or software farmers maybe?

    Software developers are rarely doing any actual engineering or design or a software surgery. Often what we see is software is throw it at the wall and see what sticks, especially true when any subsequent modification can randomly break anything that was working previously. When a software developer decides that he can and will assume some serious responsibility, then maybe he can get himself a title of an engineer.

  • In most states, in order to "sign off" on construction drawings, and other critical infrastructure design documentation, a PE license is required. In a small but substantial subset of these states, obsolete laws are still on the books forbidding anyone lacking PE certification/licensing from offering their services as an engineer, or in sine cases, the specific title of "Professional Engineer".
    You may have a PhD in Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, or {..your major here..}

    • by narcc ( 412956 )

      obsolete laws are still on the books forbidding anyone lacking PE certification/licensing from offering their services as an engineer

      Obsolete? The last thing we need is a bunch of amateurs running around calling themselves engineers and certifying things because they watched a few youtube videos.

      Logical? Possibly not.

      Very logical. In your imaginary scenario, why weren't your super-duper "engineers" able to get through what, for them, should have been a very simple process?

      I know guys like that. They want all the benefits and privileges but don't want to put in any effort. They want to be considered experts, but they don't want to prove that they're expert

  • Let's assume that engineers should be licensed, in order to ensure public trust and keep standards high. Is there some distinction between software engineering and other engineering professions, that sets it apart with regards to the need for standards and trust?

    Software engineers do their work "on a computer." These days, pretty much every kind of engineer does their work "on a computer."
    When engineers fail to do their jobs correctly, there is a high risk to lives and property. This is also true of many so

    • There do exist programmers who should probably be called engineers. The title is mostly about safety though, a civil engineer certifies that a bridge design is structurally sound and for that certification to mean anything there needs to be some rigor, some enforcement, associated with the title.

      Only a small minority of software is written to this standard. Note that the APEGA is not saying that no one should be called a software engineer, just that those people who do go by that title should be subject
      • All of what you say applies to software engineering as well as civil engineering. There are programmers who are not engineers, of course. These are the handymen of the software world. These handyman programmers can make apps or web sites, and some of them are good at it. But that's a far cry from a system that has to process hundreds of thousands of credit card transactions per second, or perform DNA matching at a large scale.

        This is similar to how a handyman can build a bridge across a backyard creek. That

  • They're coming for the railroads next.
  • The word engineer means to design something for a purpose. Anyone who does that is engineering something, and so is an engineer. They have a valid argument if someone who calls themselves a professional engineer offers a service without being certified by them. But to claim sole use of a word and concept is utter bullshit.

    • If you're willing to nullify the word, then sure. Render it meaningless, and be on your way. And any idiot who can modify anything can call themselves a "doctor". You must be in favour of that too.

      • by ukoda ( 537183 )
        You completely missed his point. The word engineer is generic and is about a way of doing things. It does not mean standards are meet or qualifications are held. For that you qualify the word engineer with a prefix such as Practicing and then and only then can you apply conditions to things.

        And yes anyone can call them selves a doctor, do you think the Rug Doctor went medical school to learn how to clean rugs? Prefix the word doctor with Medical then the whole picture changes, you better have a medic
    • APEGA only regulates geology, mechanical, structural and energy related engineering. Software is none of those. They lost a lawsuit about this 20 years ago and should be sued for contempt of court or something.
    • I agree, just one nitpick. Engineer can also mean a person who operates an engine. Which is why train drivers or people who supervise engines on ships are also called engineers.

  • by OneOfMany07 ( 4921667 ) on Friday October 14, 2022 @11:48PM (#62968003)

    Beyond them forcing Canada to use different titles for jobs than everywhere else, solely to get money from people they do nothing for... What is the goal or benefit here? Do they feel like the name is being diluted? Do they "own" that word? If yes to them owning it, then yell at your legislators to fix this stupidity.

    I had to laugh at this other version of Apega on wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) for an "ancient torture device". That seems like a synonym for agencies that take money without giving anything back.

  • It is ridiculous and stupid to have such. What is the point of the education institution an engineer has finished, passed exams and it is not enough? I mean it is pretty obvious to me, there are some leeches there. A stable income for some third party, which should not exist.
  • ... you're probably also okay with "Sandwich Architect".

    • by ukoda ( 537183 )
      Sure, I'm fine with that, provided they make a sandwich worthy of such a pretentious title. If you just slap some tomato and lettuce between two slice of bread then expect me to be asking some questions about your architectural qualifications.
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Saturday October 15, 2022 @01:34AM (#62968097) Journal

    IT job titles are very close to useless. The problem is most IT jobs are usually a mix of tasks such that to express a given position, you'd have to give a percent of time spent on a list of tasks.

    And good portion of time is often spent troubleshooting layers: one doesn't know whether the problem is the network, hardware, the app software, the browser, user confusion, the database, etc. without examining each one. Thus, you often have to know at least little of everything. We specialize, but the specialties are all tied to together to some degree via layers, dependencies, and networks. Our systems are onions caught in spider webs, which are also part of bigger onions.

    How about "StackOverflow Sifter"? That's as good as any title I know of.

    • by ukoda ( 537183 )
      I have often been tempted to use the title 'Electron Wrangler'.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      How about "StackOverflow Sifter"? That's as good as any title I know of.

      Is that a step above "Google Coder"?

  • Looking at your customer or your employer and saying to them "I am an engineer" then immediately turning around and looking at the regulatory agency telling them "I am not an engineer" is disingenuous.

    Why do you want to call yourself an engineer rather than an expert or a technician or something else?

    Even if the general public doesn't know the specific requirements for earning a p.eng they do know that when somebody shows up to do the job and introduces themselves as the engineer they're getting somebody wi

    • Looking at your customer or your employer and saying to them "I am an engineer" then immediately turning around and looking at the regulatory agency telling them "I am not an engineer" is disingenuous.

      Telling anyone I am an engineer, but not a chartered engineer is not disingenuous.

      Almost none of these code monkeys with a text editors are engineers.

      • Good on you for presenting yourself as what you are and explicitly not as what you're not.
        I doubt those passing themselves off as more qualified than they really are will follow your lead.

  • I do remember soon after university that a guy from the British Computer Society came around to pitch the idea of membership to me and some others, explaining it was accreditation for software engineers. i.e. that by demonstrating competency through their program & accreditation we'd be certified engineers for real. I'm sure he was right but I said nah and honestly it has made zero difference to my career. Nobody has ever once required certification as a prerequisite to employment.

    So I can completely

  • by rbrander ( 73222 ) on Saturday October 15, 2022 @10:45AM (#62968685) Homepage

    I just paid my APEGA dues for the 40th time as a licensed professional engineer in Alberta. I got the computer science degree right after qualifying as a P.Eng. by working for Fluor as a structural engineer.

    After some years doing lower-level computer support (Alberta in an awful recession at the time, we are the "upside-down", in pain when oil is low and the rest of the continent is having a boom, Reagan running on "are you better off now" in '84) I got back to an engineering job with Waterworks, as their IT manager, dealing with the IT department and contractors.

    A half-dozen years of that, then as the "Infrastructure Engineer" making all the GIS maps, doing our own IT, dealing with IT department, various contractors for a very engineering-specific need, and all the infrastructure-evaluation calcs that arose from the mapped inventory and all the work orders up all the assets.

    And there's just no comparison between the way that professional engineering design and construction of infrastructure works, versus how "software engineering" works.

    Professional engineering has developed a stern culture of *responsibility* - responsibility is demanded; the culture requires absolute tracking of who signed off on everything. Software engineering, as "Dilbert" was documenting 25 years back, is all about fobbing off responsibility on the customer - the important thing is to get "sign-off", after which you just bill them for hours, not for outcomes. The bad outcome is always the customer's responsibility.

    Plumbers take more responsibility; a software-engineering plumber would hold a meeting with slides about how he was going to build your bathroom, which you didn't really understand, get "sign-off"; then build you one where the toilet flush causes a fountain from the sink, which would be your fault since you signed-off on the pipe diameters and elevations.

    The clouds of confusion around software engineering, and the lack of responsibility, are how you get your healthcare.gov debacles where the fixit team doubled the speed on Day 1 because the contractors hadn't indexed the main database; it was searching all America for every record.

    Engineering mistakes happen, but not insanely-stupid disasters like that, because the cultures are utterly different. There's no comparison. This is not to demean the expertise of many great software people who take a true engineer's attitude to their work; I think most like that must move away from large programming employers, to be their own business, where they can have a true engineering culture, because software businesses, knowing they can get away with murder in a "software engineering" culture, want nothing to do with real engineering responsibility.

    I believe that most of the software that we really have to trust - real-time control - is done by electrical engineers that added software degrees, as I did to civil engineering, and most are small firms - certainly true of nearly all the water-treatment control systems I knew about.

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Working...