Re:Leetcode Considered Harmful
by MaxBarraclough on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @03:28AM
(#31905118)
Various non-software engineering disciplines implement chartered engineer schemes. I imagine there's an element of artistry there too, but they seem to cope.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Leetcode Considered Harmful
by eikenberry on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @03:38AM
(#31905168)
Curious if you'd consider this Wikipedia article on the topic to be a decent representation?
Re:Leetcode Considered Harmful
by MaxBarraclough on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @04:00AM
(#31905289)
That's the stuff I was thinking of, yes.
As a software person I don't know enough about the scheme to comment on the quality of the article, but knowing Wikipedia I imagine it's on point.
edit For a broader context than just the UK, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...
Re:Leetcode Considered Harmful
by eikenberry on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @04:05AM
(#31905317)
Thanks!
Re:Leetcode Considered Harmful
by AstralStorm on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @04:10AM
(#31905364)
Big difference is that there are standards and accepted practices in the fields in detail.
Nothing like that exists in programming, not even languages or platforms. Which is why there exist multiple proprietary certifications instead focusing on specific details.
>> Big difference is that there are standards and accepted practices in the fields in detail.
I agree.
After enough bridges fell down causing massive human fatalities, standards and accepted practices almost certainly "emerged."
Standards and accepted practices in software engineering will emerge, as if by magic, once enough "bridges fall down."