Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
What exactly is 'Software Engineering'?
Options
-
21-08-2011 10:31pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Are nobody calling themselves Computer Programmers anymore? I personally prefer that term to engineer, developer etc.
When anyone asks me what I do I say I'm a Programmer. It also rolls of the tongue much easier. To most people they're all the same and they'll just reply "oh you work with computers"
If they are interested and want to know more then I'll explain exactly what I do.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Exactly. It's "Chartered Engineer" here, "Chartered Engineer" or "Incorporated Engineer" in the UK, and various others in other EU states."Engineer" is completely unprotected in Ireland - anyone can call themselves an engineer, and lots of people do. "Chartered Engineer" is legally protected, afaik. In lots of countries, some variant on 'engineer' is protected.
Yes, but the motive for that is to have a degree of control over the level of qualification required for practicing that profession (and that's how the C.Eng. programme is set up, as are the equivalent certifications in other states, and that's all laid out in a few different international agreements).I think protected job titles typically serve as state licensed monopoly, more than anything else; essentially they give the members of the profession a license to charge more money.If I'm going for surgery, I care that I have a good surgeon, not just a surgeon.
You *hope* you have a good surgeon - the legal protection is to stop you getting someone who did a correspondence course in veterinary surgery opening you up for a quadruple bypass without legal consequences (you think caveat emptor is a pain when you buy a busted kettle? Look up the early history of medicine in europe ).
Yes, but again, the title is there to indicate a minimum standard of qualification, not to act as a rankings system (which would be a very nontrivial thing to set up in any profession).Similarly, knowing that a lawyer is defending you, isn't usually enough - people generally want a good one, not just a titled one.
Which is a fairly odd state of affairs in engineering - in Civil engineering, if you didn't have the C.Eng, the interviewer will be wondering why (unless you're only starting out), because there's a lot of buy-in to it from the industry and you're expected to work towards it from day one as a new graduate.You can become a "Chartered Engineer" as a software engineer at the moment; but if I got a CV for a software job, from a candidate who was a "Chartered Engineer", I'd be interviewing them just as critically as anyone else.
And that's a hallmark of an established engineering field in general, when the main companies in the field have bought into the idea of CPD for engineers in general being a good idea for them specifically (because it ensures a solid pool of talent to recruit from and it's a tangible benefit when headhunting).
Driven over a bridge recently?If there is a job where individuals could only do it if they were chartered engineers, I would be suspicious that was more about money making, and protectionism, more so than guaranteeing quality.
Been in a building?
Driven a car?
Flown in an airliner?
C.Eng (or equivalent) needed for the engineers on those projects (the senior engineers at any rate, and part of their job description is mentoring the non-C.Eng. engineers as they work towards their C.Eng).
It's a lot like the old master-journeyman-apprentice system, which is probably not a huge coincidence.
Hello Thomas Edison, circa 1880.I'm not sure to what extent I really trust the professional 'clubs' that are out there, and I don't know to what extent professional titles protect members of the public, vs. whether they lure them into a false sense of security, and create a mystique, that intimidates the public from asking searching questions.
Your future industry is probably going to be run by the Nikola Teslas though (ie. people with specific training and degrees in the field). And social pressure plays a large part in this - when your light bulbs can explode, setting fire to your house in the process if they were plugged in at the time, people start demanding that practitioners be trained or they don't trust them. That's why we went from the days of Faraday (completely self-taught and worked as a scientist - ie. one-offs, experiments) to the days of Edison (self-taught and worked as an industrialist getting the systems in place) to the days of Tesla (specifically trained and approached things from the theory side to the practical and thus leapfrogged the technical abilities of Edison, who emphasised large-scale trial and error (and stealing designs) over theoretical work).0 -
Exactly. It's "Chartered Engineer" here, "Chartered Engineer" or "Incorporated Engineer" in the UK, and various others in other EU states.
Yes, but the motive for that is to have a degree of control over the level of qualification required for practising that profession (and that's how the C.Eng. programme is set up, as are the equivalent certifications in other states, and that's all laid out in a few different international agreements).
You *hope* you have a good surgeon - the legal protection is to stop you getting someone who did a correspondence course in veterinary surgery opening you up for a quadruple bypass without legal consequences (you think caveat emptor is a pain when you buy a busted kettle? Look up the early history of medicine in europe ).
I was at a really interesting talk in the RCSI, during culture night a year or two ago, where the speaker discussed the history of the RCSI, and how it was set up, when they broke away from the barbers, to set themselves up as a separate professional guild! I don't believe they had any medical qualifications - or anything other than a sharp set of knives - at the time.
Pretty scary stuff, really.Yes, but again, the title is there to indicate a minimum standard of qualification, not to act as a rankings system (which would be a very nontrivial thing to set up in any profession).
I guess that I'm not sure the title fulfils that role.
Or rather, it does indicate some minimum standard; but that minimum standard is below the required standard, and as such the title isn't that useful.
And, furthermore, you lose some efficiency, by denying people alternate routes to become competent developers.
There's always a cost, to locking things down, and you can end up with problems of overfitting. They'd be huge at the moment, if you tried to regulate software.
Like, I think this is a major problem even in medicine at the moment, in this country: There's only a handful of ways to become a doctor, and I'm not sure they select the best people. A great medical scientist, say, might do a better job than some less good doctors, in certain specialist roles - but they aren't allowed do them. Psychiatry, as another example, requires becoming a trained doctor first - but does this system really result in the best practising psychiatrists?
I guess, ultimately, there is an information asymmetry between the provider of the service, and the person paying for the service. The provider knows how good they are, and the buyer doesn't.
Titles are one way to mitigate this asymmetry; but they come at a cost. Maybe in future, a state wide, crowd sourced, review system would be better?
Maybe a system that is some future evolution of Linked-In, and/or Github, would be a better answer to the problem than protected titles?
Yes; and you've got to be overseen by an existing C.Eng. and you've got to pay money for CPD courses, and membership dues to the body, etc.Which is a fairly odd state of affairs in engineering - in Civil engineering, if you didn't have the C.Eng, the interviewer will be wondering why (unless you're only starting out), because there's a lot of buy-in to it from the industry and you're expected to work towards it from day one as a new graduate.
Its a bit of a club...
Its worse if you want to be a doctor, you've got to intern like a slave; similar things exist for barristers, accountants.
Are the guarantees that titles give, in the end, really worth it?
And similar to the PhD system, too. (for better and worse)And that's a hallmark of an established engineering field in general, when the main companies in the field have bought into the idea of CPD for engineers in general being a good idea for them specifically (because it ensures a solid pool of talent to recruit from and it's a tangible benefit when headhunting).
Driven over a bridge recently?
Been in a building?
Driven a car?
Flown in an airliner?
C.Eng (or equivalent) needed for the engineers on those projects (the senior engineers at any rate, and part of their job description is mentoring the non-C.Eng. engineers as they work towards their C.Eng).
It's a lot like the old master-journeyman-apprentice system, which is probably not a huge coincidence.Hello Thomas Edison, circa 1880.
Your future industry is probably going to be run by the Nikola Teslas though (ie. people with specific training and degrees in the field). And social pressure plays a large part in this - when your light bulbs can explode, setting fire to your house in the process if they were plugged in at the time, people start demanding that practitioners be trained or they don't trust them. That's why we went from the days of Faraday (completely self-taught and worked as a scientist - ie. one-offs, experiments) to the days of Edison (self-taught and worked as an industrialist getting the systems in place) to the days of Tesla (specifically trained and approached things from the theory side to the practical and thus leapfrogged the technical abilities of Edison, who emphasised large-scale trial and error (and stealing designs) over theoretical work).
This sounds interesting - have you got an article or book that talks about this, and uses these examples? Sounds like theres an interesting essay in there - has it been written?0 -
Sharp knives and fast hands. Literally, that was all - and the fast hands were as important as the sharp knives because the faster they got things over with, the higher your odds of survival. Look up how they got rid of kidneystones sometime if you want to squirm for a good five minutes :eek:I don't believe they had any medical qualifications - or anything other than a sharp set of knives - at the time.
Pretty scary stuff, really.
I wonder about that.Or rather, it does indicate some minimum standard; but that minimum standard is below the required standard, and as such the title isn't that useful.
And, furthermore, you lose some efficiency, by denying people alternate routes to become competent developers.
Definitely, in the early years of a field, field-specific degrees aren't any advantage (and may not even be available), but as it matures, that stops being the case gradually. You see it in the history of every profession and every branch of engineering, and the random one-in-a-million geniuses who frankly could turn their minds to anything and do groundbreaking work regardless of circumstances tend to become the actual one-in-a-million exceptions to the rule.
I don't think we're quite there yet for software, but you can just about see it from here.
I honestly couldn't say - and that to me, kindof proves the point of the people who set up that systemLike, I think this is a major problem even in medicine at the moment, in this country: There's only a handful of ways to become a doctor, and I'm not sure they select the best people. A great medical scientist, say, might do a better job than some less good doctors, in certain specialist roles - but they aren't allowed do them. Psychiatry, as another example, requires becoming a trained doctor first - but does this system really result in the best practising psychiatrists?
So, ratemysolicitor.com rather than the Bar?I guess, ultimately, there is an information asymmetry between the provider of the service, and the person paying for the service. The provider knows how good they are, and the buyer doesn't.
Titles are one way to mitigate this asymmetry; but they come at a cost. Maybe in future, a state wide, crowd sourced, review system would be better?
Hmmm.
Can't quite go with that idea myself to be honest. The whole point of minimum standards is that there's an accountability trail. If your solicitor is incompetent and you lose your house because they muck up the conveyancing or if you doctor is incompetent and you get sick as a result, you have legal remedies to pursue. With a crowdsourcing solution, you get a ranking system, but no accountability trail, you'd be right back to caveat emptor.
You're missing the international standards there. And I don't think "club" really covers it. Unless you consider undergrad degrees in the same way...Yes; and you've got to be overseen by an existing C.Eng. and you've got to pay money for CPD courses, and membership dues to the body, etc.
Its a bit of a club...
If something goes wrong, yes.Are the guarantees that titles give, in the end, really worth it?
If you die because someone stuffs up your tonsillectomy, your next of kin get the proceeds from the medical malpractice suit, which means they're cared for. That kind of thing is important, not just for individuals but for society in general because it drives up the level of medical care in the long term so that everyone benefits.
Well, sortof, yes, but for good reason. The modern C.Eng in Ireland would be analogous to what the original M.A.I. would have been in the 1800s, and the PhD system grew out of those roots.And similar to the PhD system, too. (for better and worse)
It must have been, it's too juicy not to have been written up, but I can't think of a specific citation. The examples are unfortunate as all three characters are historically significant and notorious for their own reasons (the Tesla/Edison current wars and their fallout) which clouds the analogy.This sounds interesting - have you got an article or book that talks about this, and uses these examples? Sounds like theres an interesting essay in there - has it been written?0 -
-
-
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Nowhere near the truth.
A software engineer is the equivalent of an architect, while a programmer is the equivalent of the blocklayer.
I would disagree, a business analysist is more of an architect. architects are not block layers, Not all business analysists are programmers, where as all software engineers are programmers.
software engineer/programmer/software developer are all just titles in my opinion, they mean different things in different companies. I have a degree in "Software developemnt", a masters in "Software Engineering" and my job title where I work is "Programmer" 0 -
This particular discussion is almost impossible to pin down as there are so many parameters. My tupence worth would be that having a college education and an inadvertant title doesn't mean you know what you are doing given that 90% of college courses focus on the regurgitation of text books. I have seen doctors qualify who couldn't take blood, computer scientists who couldn't write an application which could actually be used by anyone. IMHO, titles mean absolutely nothing in any industry and the only real way to measure a person is by sitting down and asking the right questions however this is not always time compliant and hence titles must be used to whittle down potential candidates provided daddy isn't pulling the strings that is 0
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement