"In what way do you think software engineering doesn't constitute engineering?"

Because it's just a made-up word like "database architecture". Certifications are not given out in Software "Engineering". No certification is given which has these words on it. Engineering entails the use of standardized rigorous engineering practices to manufacture systems, structures, and machines. Tell me, is software developed in a standardized way?

And I ask again, what engineering degree do you have, Draugnar?

'Certifications are not given out in Software "Engineering"'

Actually, yes they are.

http://engineers.texas.gov/software.html

http://theinstitute.ieee.org/career-and-education/career-guidance/licensing-software-engineers-is-in-the-works

"Tell me, is software developed in a standardized way?"

If you were a Software Engineer you'd know how stupid you just made yourself look.

The answer is *YES*! We have standards and best practices and approaches to development that include separation of data, business rules, and presentation layers. We have community standards groups that define these practices and we design software in much the same way a structural engineer designs a bridge and in very much the same way an electrical engineer designs a circuit.

And my degree right now is an Associates of Science in Systems Analysis and Engineering. but you should be aware that not all engineers even have degrees. My father was a NDT Engineer and never went to college. But he was a member (retired now) of the ASNT and fully-certified as an engineer. Guess what, he recognizes me as a software engineer. I have more numerous certifications in everything from .Net to Java to SQL DBA.

What professional certifications do you have to judge my profession? Being a teacher hardly makes one worthy to judge the credentials of a someone in a technical field. It just gives you the credentials to be an ass about it.

You say I shouldn't judge teachers, yet here you are making a determination about a group of professionals who, on average, make *way* more than you do or will ever hope to make. We are the people who develop the systems that make life livable. Do you think it is by hardware alone that the phone system works? Or the electrical grid? Or even the systems in your car (unless of course you have a pre OBD car)?

That's a PE test. Yes if you pass a PE test, you're an engineer. But in order to sit for a PE test you have to have an actual engineering degree from an accredited engineering school. I wonder how many "software engineers" are going to bother with a PE test.

Engineering is a weird ass discipline where people get to run around without degrees calling themselves engineers. I'm sure lawyers and doctors would love to have to same leeway. If you call yourself a "doctor" without being a doctor you go to jail. Apparently in engineering it's accepted practice.

"You say I shouldn't judge teachers, yet here you are making a determination about a group of professionals who, on average, make *way* more than you do or will ever hope to make"

How is your paycheck relevant? You just like bringing it up all the time. Says a lot about you. I love how you whine about people judging you but you feel entitled to do it all the time. Ever think the reason I turned the tables on you is because you repeatedly shit on professions you have no clue about?

"And my degree right now is an Associates of Science in Systems Analysis and Engineering"

So you went to an engineering school? This is an engineering degree from an accredited engineering program?

If teachers did get paid more than you desk jockeys who bill for unworked hours then you'd say they were overpaid anyway, as you already do.

Arguments like that discredit the small-government position.

"Excluding the military, this entire country could be comfortably run by less than 100,000 federal employees. Less than a third of the federal government's departments are even constitutional."

How? There are 539 members of Congress, throwing in the delegates. Let's give each of them just 10 staff members (the average is much higher, but assume we force economies). You're already at 5,390 government employees, and that's just to keep members' schedules in order and answer and deal with requests from constituents. That's 5% of your proposed federal workforce just to make sure Congressional offices keep sputtering along, not even including maintenance staff to keep the Capitol clean and in good repair. So let's assume we can pare it down to an even 5,500 federal employees working in the Capitol.

But what about the White House? How many people work there? The president, obviously. Wikipedia says the Executive Office of the President has about 4,000 people in it. Let's be brutal and slash a quarter of them, bringing our total to 8,500 federal employees. Almost a tenth of what you want the federal government payroll to be down to and we're still on the same street!

How many federal judges are there? Wikipedia again gives us a number. 874 Article III judges right now. No easy way to find out how many Article I and IV judges there are. This is wild guess, but since even your 1791 restorationist position requires bankruptcy courts let's put the total number of federal judges at 3,000 for the whole country. Remember bankruptcy is a federal matter as are things like patents. All in the Constitution. So 3,000 judges. Judges need clerks. Give them each one poor, overoworked sap. Now 6,000 judicial employees. But more people work in a courthouse than just judges and clerks. For one, you need lawyers to argue in front of these judges. Let's give each judge five government lawyers to prosecute federal crimes. So we're at 18,000 people working in federal courts, assuming every lawyer in DOJ is a litigator and they work from home. I'll even leave out clerical staff in the federal courthouses since it'll just be wild guess. That brings the total to 26,500. A quarter of your proposal and all we have are Congressional offices, presidential advisers, and a unworkably bare-bones court system.

Speaking of court-system, prisons! Let's make it an even 30,000 now with guards, cooks, wardens, etc. Nearly a third of the way there already.


I could keep going, but you get the point. Saying we could make do on 100,000 federal employees is lunacy in a nation of over 310,000,000. That's .03% of the population. It's just not possible.

Obviously, I agree with the principle that there should be fewer government employees than there are now and that our spending is unsustainable and needs to be radically curtailed. But you're just being ridiculous when you make the proposals you do, Gunfighter06. You just think "gubmint's bad, so we should only have 100,000 non-military employees max" without really thinking about the implication of that idea. It's things like that that drive people away.

"We have community standards groups that define these practices and we design software in much the same way a structural engineer designs a bridge and in very much the same way an electrical engineer designs a circuit."

Bridges & circuits use matter & natural energy. What matter & natural energy does software development use?

And if software is developed in the engineering mode then no wonder it sucks so much.
One would think that software development was a bit more creative and artistic and didn't follow a rote process.

tl;dr Gunfighter06 is being silly.

Putin33, who the hell are you, with a political science degree(s) and a teaching job, to pass judgement on the quality of software and whether or not software engineers are "really engineers"?

Dude, it's OK for there to be fields of knowledge you just don't know anything about. No need to fake expertise by ignorantly insulting a profession you must have virtually ZERO familiarity with.

@Putin

You do understand that software runs on computers, right?

You can't just code however you want. It won't work, or if it does, it will run at something ridiculous like O(n!).

Are all "software engineers" real engineers? Certainly not. I'll also grant you that the difference between some run-of-the-mill coder and a software engineer can be harder to discern, but that doesn't mean the profession isn't real.

"And if software is developed in the engineering mode then no wonder it sucks so much."

Saying all software sucks is at least as ridiculous as saying all fiction writing sucks, which Putin33 has. I know literally nothing about how this magic box I'm typing on works, but since I can do so it obviously doesn't suck.

Also, I think the fact that engineering is defined by what you do, and not necessarily what degree you have, is a plus. I know of many people who were incredibly prolific electronics engineers without any real education. In fact, many of the best engineers don't have formal training. If you engineer, you are an engineer. Why is that such a bad thing?

"Putin33, who the hell are you, with a political science degree(s) and a teaching job, to pass judgement on the quality of software and whether or not software engineers are "really engineers"? "

Do you people listen to yourselves? Or does cognitive dissonance just never enter into your brain? You repeatedly attack public servants, government workers, and teachers yet you whine and cry when anybody turns the tables on you. You have this miraculous ability to never apply the same rules to yourselves.

#tuquoque

" If you engineer, you are an engineer. Why is that such a bad thing?"

Because the public is at risk. I think a field as important as engineering should have some standards, especially if it calls itself a profession.

Because the answer to every problem, real or imagined, is more bureaucracy.

We can always count on you for cheap slogans.

There is a standard and it's a very good one. It's called the Professional Engineering license.

Any project that might harm the public is signed off on by several PEs. This includes buildings, roads, power systems, etc. There aren't many Computer/Software PEs because, until recently there wasn't much SW could do to kill you. That's changing and as Semck pointed out, SW Engineering is being added to PE. You'll likely see many more SW PEs as computers become increasingly ubiquitous.

And, by the way, just as you can't lie about being a lawyer or a medical doctor, there are severe consequences for lying about being a PE as well.

And we can always could on you for rank nonsense, Putin33, as this thread has clearly shown.

"And, by the way, just as you can't lie about being a lawyer or a medical doctor, there are severe consequences for lying about being a PE as well."

Sure, I just don't see why people who aren't PEs can run around call themselves engineers.

"And we can always could on you for rank nonsense, Putin33, as this thread has clearly shown."

How about you class up the thread by talking about how much you enjoy finding out that people's lives are ruined then, hot stuff?

Because the PE exam is overkill and irrelevant for a majority of engineering projects. Also, there is really no confusion. If you've passed the PE, you're a professional engineer. If you haven't, you're an engineer. No one should be confused because a different term is used.

"That's a PE test. Yes if you pass a PE test, you're an engineer. But in order to sit for a PE test you have to have an actual engineering degree from an accredited engineering school."

Then how did my dad get it? He has never attended college a day in his life. Got out of the navy, went to work for GE as a technician and worked his way up the ranks. Maybe today you have to have it. I don't know. But you didn't then.

Or maybe he didn't. I don't know that he carried the PE or not. I just know that his title was NDT Engineer, not Technician.

You can't simultaneously use the PE license as proof that engineering is held to a high professional standard while also saying that the PE license is irrelevant for the vast majority of engineering projects.