Software engineers design and develop computer programs and applications.

I thought that’s a software developer?

So a programmer

I'd say a programmer is to a software engineer as a handyman is to an architect. Can a handyman do the "dirty work" of most projects? Sure. Can they design a skyscraper to spec, tell you exactly what to expect in terms of resources and timeline, and roll with the punches of logistics and competing priorities? Probably not, unless they were already an architect just doing the job of a handyman.

That being said, as someone with a software engineering degree, I can safely say that most companies don't need engineers and can get by just fine with programmers. Anyway, in this industry there are many architects working as handymen and vice versa.

Can an architect actually put the pieces together? Do they know where to source materials? Do they understand how to order and schedule the construction of a design? Do they "just get" why a particular combination of materials at a specific point in a structure is going to cause problems, because they've seen it over and over? Can they even operate all the tools?

Probably not, unless they used to actually do construction before becoming an architect.

The answer to most of your questions is yes, although obviously most architects are not proficient in operating most tools used in construction because that's not their job.

> Can an architect actually put the pieces together?

Unclear what this means, but architects have plenty of training in doing "manual work". Building models requires a lot more precision than most things in construction.

> Do they know where to source materials?

That's part of their job description.

> Do they understand how to order and schedule the construction of a design?

Definitely part of their job description.

The real truth of the matter is "it depends".

I have about a half-dozen friends as architects in the US, and only 1 of them could do any of the things I mentioned. All have been practising residential and commercial and government architects for > 30 years.

I'd rather be called a handyman than a "Generalist Labor Engineer"

It's a person who applies engineering principles to the design and implementation of software. It's about the "rigidity" of the methods that are used to construct the software. If the software is just cobbled together, it's not "engineered".

There is no such thing as a "software engineer", period.

An "engineer" is someone who works in a technical profession with a governing body (either the State, or an entity that might as well be the State).

An engineer is certified by the governing body, and given a license to practice the profession. An engineer can have their license suspended or rescinded, in the event of professional misconduct or malpractice.

Whether through law, or de facto through insurance company practices, employers face liability if they employ non-licensed engineers. So an engineer is someone who has the leverage to push back against employer pressure to commit malpractice.

Computer programmers / software developers have none of these things. Certifications are a joke, and meaningless beyond the entry level. We are pressured by employers to commit malpractice on a near-daily basis, and call it "tech debt" (recently I've noticed companies moving toward the even more euphemistic "tech opportunity").

Without a governing body and licensing, it is impossible for us to be "engineers" in any real sense of the term. We can only try to emulate an engineering profession as best we best, by pushing back on malpractice pressure where we can.

> There is no such thing as a "software engineer", period.

That's a bold statement.

Would you argue, for instance, that someone graduating from MIT EECS[0] or Stanford Engineering[1] isn't qualified to use the tittle of Engineer?

> An engineer is certified by that governing body, and given a license to practice the profession. An engineer can have their license suspended or rescinded, in the event of professional misconduct or malpractice.

I think you are confused with the PE regulations. [2]

[0] https://www.eecs.mit.edu/

[1] https://engineering.stanford.edu/students-academics/academic...

[2] https://ncees.org/about/

Has a governing body issued you a license, without which one cannot practice your profession? No? Then indeed, you are not an "engineer" in the sense of a profession, as with doctors and lawyers and CPA's, etc. This is wholly orthogonal to the prestige of whichever college you graduated.

Note that even on your own Stanford and MIT links above, they reserve the term "engineering" for programs OTHER THAN "Computer Science" (e.g. "Chemical Engineering", "Electrical Engineering", etc). Show me a "Software Engineering" program at any accredited university.

There's no confusion, I am 100% talking about PE regulations. One requires a license to practice chemical engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, all but the most entry-level roles in aerospace engineering, etc. Employers effectively cannot hire non-licensed workers for those positions.

If that does not apply to your job, then you are an "engineer" only in the sense of LinkedIn puffery.

Mind you, this applies to all us (myself included) in the software development field. I'm not trying to be a gatekeeper. Rather, the complete absence of gatekeeping is the entire point here.

I'm pretty sure ASU [0] is accredited.

0: https://asuonline.asu.edu/online-degree-programs/undergradua...

This is flat out wrong. Many engineering positions do not require a PE certification or state licensure. For example, consumer products are mostly regulated by liability and testing regimes like UL/FCC as opposed to stamping a design to assert that it meets the requirements. Engineers designing consumer products are still engineers.

I agree that the profession of "software engineering" could stand to have much more of the rigor of engineering. For example, it's painfully missing a sense of ethics about large scale surveillance systems. But your argument is biting off way too much.

The ship has sailed, and you're fighting with an intense zeal that doesn't match the problem. Why die on this hill - are you reserving the "engineer" title for some purpose in the software field?

Interesting perspective, agreed on some of the points.

I'd like to hear some opinions from people who have worked as both "an engineer" and "a software engineer" (maybe OP is such a person, idk) -- what kind of corner-cutting is there in (non-software) engineering fields? Is it at all comparable to tech debt? What kind of compromises in quality/design are made in the service of profit or career advancement? etc.

I think a lot of people end up with an impression that in e.g. civil engineering, everything is perfect and precise and elegant because it has to be (otherwise crumbling infrastructure, accidents, etc.). But understanding that humans in general are always looking to cut corners and be lazy, I wonder how realistic that impression really is... Wouldn't be surprised to hear about comical inefficiencies and poor practices that have become normalized over decades of designing/building physical stuff.

I have been both. While it may seem weird, my response to “is this software person an engineer?” might be “did they take an engineering economics class?”

I did, as well as other courses on non-obvious adjacent topics. Not everyone knows the breadth of concerns that engineering brings to solving problems. It’s not as simple as a technical design.

Now, I see plenty of software people who use the same broad set of skills in problem solving, but it’s rare. It’s rare to see software people care about economics. Social impact is also a rare concern. As is governability. As is systemic thinking.

But, there are absolutely software engineers, just not as many as there are people with the title IMHO.

You don't happen to work for the Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, do you? :)

https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...

The full court opinion (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Jarlstorm-opinion....) is a pretty good read if you're bored sometime.