But you're not wrong.
Pile on the regulation (GDPR for starts, more PII protection to follow up, extremely painful fines for failures).
This doesn't come from software developers.
This comes from the SV culture of "move fast and break things."
I went through classical engineering school, and I'd summarize with three categories:
* Newtonian Physics & The Mathematics Behind It (i.e. Differential Equations)
* Ethics
* Technical Communications
Offering engineering services to the public requires licensure. Working at places like Boeing, General Motors, Texas Instruments, and Caterpillar does not (for the vast majority of positions); It just requires an accredited engineering degree.
Note that this is independent of the software industry needing more engineering rigor, which it desperately does.
"Software Engineer" is just a job title.
> Engineering requires licensing and exams through a governing body.
"Software Engineering" doesn't, it's just a job title.
> Can’t have the prestige of the title without the responsibility.
There is no real-world prestige associated with having "Software Engineer" as a job title (as opposed to "Software Developer").
> Software developers want to have their cake and eat it too (power and respect with no oversight and governance).
"Power and respect" is not actually something that is commonly associated with a guy sitting at a desk for a salary.
> Pile on the regulation (GDPR for starts, more PII protection to follow up, extremely painful fine for failures).
You just learned that Facebook stored passwords in plaintext for years and nothing bad happened. In fact, it's hard to conceive that anything particularly disastrous could have happened. Yet, you call for more regulation that will drive up costs for everything. Whole industries could become unprofitable and those high-paid "Software Engineers" would become redundant.
I have the opposite opinion: The fact that computer security is generally poor teaches people how to properly use computers. They need to assume that there are no secrets, because that is the plain reality. No amount of regulation will make computers secure. No certification or best-practice encryption scheme will prevent users from writing their password on post-it notes, or from opening "sexy.jpg.exe", or from answering that call from the "Microsoft Service Center".
The point is that the public should have confidence in engineers. Software developers who tout themselves as "software engineers" actively piggy-back upon, and undermine this confidence. It's malicious, and you should feel bad for defending the practice.
If you still don't see why, "Lawyer" and "Doctor" are "just job titles" but obviously that's a problem. I trust you can see that.
Yeah well, good for them I guess. I don't think anybody else cares.
> The point is that the public should have confidence in engineers.
Why? "Engineer" is a very broad term used in a variety of occupations for very different things. If you're looking at someone's credentials and you're so uninformed that you can't tell the difference between a licensed engineer in a particular profession and a guy that has "Engineer" written on their business card, you're not qualified to make a decision either way.
> If you still don't see why, "Lawyer" and "Doctor" are "just job titles" but obviously that's a problem. I trust you can see that.
I can see the argument for why a medical doctor or a lawyer should be afforded some amount of protection, because they are directly dealing with laymen. I don't buy the same argument for the word "Engineer", much less "Software Engineer". It just doesn't really mean anything. We already have degrees and certifications for when specifics matter.
We focus a lot on testing and I just finished a mandatory ethics workshop. Its a different approach to software than I read about elsewhere. Almost no time spent on algorithms either - bad for interviews, but great for being able to write software that works though.
And like the job title "sandwich engineer", it should probably be derided.
Apologies to anybody working in the honorable trade of sandwich crafting. I love sandwiches and appreciate your work. They bring me much more enjoyment than software.
But seriously, the definition of engineer in regular lexicon is someone who designs, builds, or maintains complex systems. I struggle to think how software does not tick all of those boxes. Sandwiches are a different story.
Perhaps you are confusing engineer with professional engineer? I can see how it might be easy to mix them up if you are not paying attention, but professional engineer carries a different meaning. Most software engineers are not professional engineers but are unquestionably engineers.
Of course, some people get software engineering degrees, or computer science degrees (that term is another can of worms entirely), but that is not the rule.
Only to the extent that all words are meaningless. However, we keep a reference known as a dictionary that helps maintain some consistency around meanings of words.
The Oxford Dictionary defines engineer as:
1. A person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures.
2. A person who controls an engine, especially on an aircraft or ship.
3. A skilful contriver or originator of something.
Is software an engine, machine, or structure? That is debatable, although I would suggest that it does meet the definition of machine. Under that suggestion, software engineer is a perfectly appropriate term. Designing, building, and maintaining is exactly what software engineers do.
If you disagree that software falls under the definition of engine, there is still that third definition. Is software created by a skilful contriver or originator of something? I think that is a definite yes.
> There has to be some standard, some governing body, some degree of rigour applied here.
Professional engineers are expected to display those things. That is unrelated to engineers. Different terms with different meanings. Software engineers may not be professional engineers, although they can be.
So we should call car mechanics "mechanical engineers"? And maintaining structures? With all due respect to the janitors out there, their job is vital to society but it's not engineering.
By definition, I don't see why not. I suspect the spirit of maintain may be a little more nuanced, but words are fluid and if someone wants to interpret it that way, then it is so.
> With all due respect to the janitors out there, their job is vital to society but it's not engineering.
If by janitor you are thinking of someone who sweeps the floors, I think that is well beyond the spirit of maintain. That, to me, is cleaning.
Maintenance of a structure is more like addressing a beam that is cracking. I doubt that is a role that an average janitor deals with, and in many cases will legally require a professional engineer to spec the resolution.
But words are fluid, so if you interpret a janitor as someone who maintains a structure, then I guess engineer fits. It really makes no difference either way.
Title only engineers work on complex systems.
This distinction has largely been lost and most "Software Engineers" think they are doing PE Engineering when they are not.
Seems a bit silly.