Software engineering doesn't need a bunch of gatekeepers telling developers who can deploy code and who cannot or what technology they should be forced to use. Specific projects in specific domain already are already subject to laws and regulations, there is no need for gatekeeping that profession with a license.
Every time there is that sort of scandal in the news you come here pushing for that stupid idea. The "The Shock Doctrine "...
Maybe more "gatekeeping" is needed.
the plurality of opinions and solutions is what makes the wealth of the software industry, not people who think they are smarter than everybody else because of the tech they use and want to impose that tech on the rest of us.
The industry doesn't need a bunch of self-serving people who could decide who should write, deploy, release programs and who shouldn't.
Your comment is a sentence written just for the sake it...
You keep on calling everybody else an idiot, "politely", without demonstrating a shred of understanding of whatever "fundamentals" yourself.
You have nothing to say.
Why perceive it that way? Nothing wrong with not knowing something or being mistaken in understaning.
To explain the fundamentals to you I'd have to know where you are starting from and it might be an exhausting use of my time.
The way you've communicated so far indicates that it wouldn't be an effective use of my time.
"The industry doesn't need a bunch of self-serving people who could decide who should write, deploy, release programs and who shouldn't. "
Comments like this display a lack of understanding how regulations actually work in practice along with mistaking the protections that a license brings as being just used by "self serving individuals".
Understanding you haven't demonstrated yourself.
"you don't understand how it works" is the most classic passive aggressive and the laziest comment you could make to try to argue a point you didn't even attempt at arguing at first place.
> The way you've communicated so far indicates that it wouldn't be an effective use of my time.
Convenient. How more arrogant can one be?
Glad being not "worth your time".
I used "gatekeeping" because that is the term you called it. It's your assumption that professional licenses are there to just 'gatekeep'.
And thinking this is about a 'Developer License' instead of an 'Engineering License' indicates your lack of understanding.
A Professional License for 'Software Engineering' would not be the same as making anyone that wants to develop or write software for a living need a license. Again, this indicates your lack of understanding or awareness of fundamentals.
Nobody is getting "big mad", you just made that thing up as a cope out of the discussion, since you have no argument.
> I used "gatekeeping" because that is the term you called it. It's your assumption that professional licenses are there to just 'gatekeep'.
Who's going to deliver the "professional license" and decide who's fit for being a professional software engineer? That's the very definition of gatekeeping.
I thought I was "not worth your time"? Seems like you're just commenting for the sake of having the last word in that exchange. Carry on.
> Again, this indicates your lack of understanding or awareness of fundamentals.
what fundamentals? You keep using that word without even explaining what it entails, seems to me you have no idea yourself what are even these "fundamentals", it's just a not so subtile variation of "you're just ignorant" fallacy, trying to fake a position of authority. You're no authority on anything here.
That's what I mean by lacking understanding of even the basic fundamentals and it would be hard to guess where to even begin with you since it's obvious you'll not interested in learning.
I am unsure that you even understand what the word "understand" means.
> That's what I mean by lacking understanding of even the basic fundamentals and it would be hard to guess where to even begin with you since it's obvious you'll not interested in learning.
You're not providing any of the "basics" you keep talking about, I'm not sure you even understand what the words "fundamentals" and "basics" means. See what I'm saying? I'm saying absolutely nothing and that's exactly what you keep on doing, say absolutely nothing.
As was pointed out it's clear you don't understand what words like 'Profession' means in the context here. There's a difference between having a career and being in a formal 'Profession' and what that entails. A 'profession' comes with a professional license.
That's evidence of you lacking in understanding of Fundamentals.
No need to create a new fake account every time you answer me chickenbittle/lolnobtool/whatever. You call me rude I call you arrogant and self serving since you're into ad hominem attacks.
> That's evidence of you lacking in understanding of Fundamentals.
That's evidence of nothing, that's purely your opinion.
A profession is "a paid occupation, especially one that involves prolonged training and a formal qualification". The formal qualification is already sanctioned by a state/government diploma. Obviously that's the fundamental you are lacking yourself, calling the kettle black...
> As was pointed out it's clear you don't understand what words like 'Profession' means in the context here. There's a difference between having a career and being in a formal 'Profession' and what that entails. A 'profession' comes with a professional license.
As pointed out it's clear you don't even know what you're talking about. Every profession don't come with a professional license, you just made that up, or trying to use the word profession as a weasel word, which is dishonest.
Qualification isn't what you want, you want some kind of bureaucracy who will decide who can be developer and who cannot and bar people from being developers, or make developers take the fall when executives ask them to do questionable stuff, AKA gatekeepers, fuck that shit.