Agreed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24106617
> You don't need to be in any of them to write software.
Then they are irrelevant.
> Do we really want to impose that level of gatekeeping on the profession?
Yes, absolutely. Everybody benefits except developers who probably shouldn't be writing software professionally in the first place.
I suspect corporations don't want limit software engineers to those with licenses only as there would be less of them available and costs of said licensed software engineers would increase.
It comes down to money, which includes liability. I suspect licensing won't ever happen in software unless law suits increase and licensing becomes a deterrent, at which point licensed developers will cost less after factoring for risk assessments. There are all kinds of unintended benefits for everybody that come from limiting negligence, which pays for itself. As a counter argument who benefits most from allowing the hiring and practicing of negligent developers?
There are already professional organizations for developers and engineers. ACM's ethics code even includes, "avoid harm." You don't need to be in any of them to write software. We would need to pass laws dictating that Facebook et al can only employ licensed software engineers. Do we really want to impose that level of gatekeeping on the profession?
The important part is that there's an accountability structure outside the company. Without that an oath just consists of words on paper.