Hacker News Reader

I agree with a lot of this. Without some kind of official sanctioning, programmers lack a mandate to push back on management, which makes it much harder. On the other hand, programmer is such a diverse topic that any kind of sanctioning is bound to be inappropriate for the vast majority of programmers. Kind of like making an electrical engineer know about civil engineering to get sanctioned as an "engineer" (I know this happens, but it doesn't make it very right; there even many different kinds of EE and so on...). Heck, when I was at Microsoft, we were subjected to yearly generic ethic training that was very difficult for us researchers to relate to.

I would prefer some kind of universal professional ethics and responsibilities that wouldn't be related to your specific profession. Heck, being ethical applies to mathematicians, economists, journalists, musicians, programmers, engineers, and so on.

I've passed the Fundamentals of Engineering exam for EE. There was a civil engineering portion, and I passed it despite never having done any schoolwork in civ-e. It's not hard.

Congrats on your qualification as a civ-e then :)

Just joking. I mean, the questions are doable, they just aren't very meaningful.

No, but there is value in seeing just what other branches of engineer have to learn to safeguard human life.

Sure, but I'm not sure why that applies to the many other Es (ChemE, MaterialE, MechE, ...), or why it would just focus on what is done with respect to civ-E (given the other Es, just because it was second oldest?), or do they include other Es as well?

The CivE questions are not much of a departure from Mech-E at all.

That still leaves chemical engineers and material engineers, and that is partly because Civ-E is older, and the need for licensing in Civ-E was established first, by the Quebec bridge disaster.

But ultimately the whole thing is an exercise in social engineering, to make you care about your honor as much as about money (the money for being a PE is not that big a bonus), and making you look at Civ-E for a day in this fashion, well, it works.

You may notice that Software Engineering indeed does have a Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam, although most jobs do not require it.[1] So SW Engineers can indeed be certified. Although I am not aware of any place with licencing requirements. Likewise for electrical engineers / mechanical / civil / etc you can often work for decades without one as long as the company has one PE to sign off on your work.

I think that Software Engineers should be held to the same standards as other kinds of engineers (and yes, I am aware I am implying Software Engineers are Engineers). The industry just hasn't caught up yet.

[1] http://ncees.org/engineering/pe/

Yes, but the blocking factor is the precursor to the PE exam, namely the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. Even the generic FE exam contains topics that most CS majors are not likely to have encountered. See http://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/FE-Other-CBT-spe... for a summary.

The other major blocker is that the Professional Engineer licensure process requires "four years of progressive engineering experience under a PE" (see https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe). There being few, if any, software PEs, there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem.

> The other major blocker is that the Professional Engineer licensure process requires "four years of progressive engineering experience under a PE" (see https://www.nspe.org/resources/licensure/what-pe). There being few, if any, software PEs, there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem.

Agreed, this is a big issue.

Also, it requires that the school have a specific accreditation that is unusual for Computer Science. My school has it but it didn't have it until 3 years after I graduated because it was so new. Although I had to take all the same courses as the eventually accredited version. (my year was the first year to do so but it takes a few years to get the accreditation)

So I'm not sure if I'm even eligible to take it because of that.

Not just accreditation (many schools have that), it needs a specific type that is for engineering.

Either way, as someone pointed out. It is a process. It won't happen overnight.

Building up the infrastructure to support a new profession takes generations. Lawyers have been doing it for centuries, doctors slightly less. It will take a very long time to iron out the details of licensing and cross-state recognition of qualifications. It's not a thing just for industry but for the entire society to adopt.

Responding to my own post because I wound this interest...

Based on that page I linked, the SW Engineering PE has the lowest passing rate and an average passing rate of repeat test takers of any of the exams. I presume because most schools and careers do not prepare people properly for this exam.

> Doctors cut people open.

Software controlling robots cut people one, beams of ionizing radiation guided by software burn tumors inside them.

> Engineers put their stamp on bridges carrying people.

Finite element analysis software tell engineers the stresses on bridges carrying people.

> Lawyers hold client secrets.

Cryptographic protocols protect everyone's secrets.

> Nurses handle dangerous drugs.

Hospital administration software tell nurses what drugs to deliver at what dosages.

In each of these fields, as practiced today, professional and ethical conduct on the part of software engineers is a necessary precondition for the successful outcomes downstream.

>> In each of these fields, as practiced today, professional and ethical conduct on the part of software engineers is a necessary precondition for the successful outcomes downstream.

But in none of those fields do the engineers building the tools have any real knowledge of the ethical obligations, nor are they held responsible should their innovations be misused. Their services are not relied upon directly by the patients/clients but by other professionals. The Doctor is responsible to the patient because he is the one telling the patient to trust the robot. The engineer is only responsible to the Doctor as the Doctor is the one buying the product.

A coder's ethical duties end once his invention is fit for purpose. He does not control how his invention is used. A coder cannot know how his work will be used by others, nor is he expected to supervise how his innovations are used once sold. Many innovations will eventually be released into public domain (copyright). A doctor or lawyer's professional obligations do not end, continuing even after death. Doctors/lawyers/teachers/carpenters also retain absolute control over how their services are used and can withdraw at any time. They are not creating products for sale.

(A doc can invent and sell a product, as a lawyer can write a book, but such products are something different than providing professional services to a client.)

> What would a world look like should "computer programmer" become a recognized profession as the article suggests? Will non-professionals be forbidden from writing code?

No.

> Will we have state boards deciding how and by whom computer programing may be taught as they do law schools?

No.

> Would hardware with open firmware be sold only to licensed professionals as we do with medicines?

No.

> That's an absurd world.

Yes, because you've tried to make it sound absurd. The reality is that in medicine, engineering, and law, restrictions are based on knowledge, skill, and ability, which is reasonable and would also be reasonable to apply to software.

I can buy some medicine at the store, like Advil. I need a prescription for others, like Oxycontin. And some medicines can only be administered by professionals, like chemotherapy.

Likewise, anyone can teach in medical school or law school. They just need to demonstrate that they are qualified to do so. And there is plenty of medical training that does not have to meet that standard, like CPR, basic first aid, even EMT.

How would similar approaches for software be absurd? Some software is more critical than others, just like some engineering, medicine, and law is more critical than others.

Here's an example of something that is actually absurd: the physical systems of a car are engineered by professional engineers, to comply with known safety standards and regulations. Meanwhile the code controlling those physical systems can be written by someone with no training, and is held to no standards whatsoever.

Expecting licensed programmers' stamp on critical code is really such a stretch of imagination?