Re: Software Engineering in Florida

[Ron Skoog <rons@nospam.aonix.com>]

Richard D Riehle wrote:
> 
> In article <lpdV3.8$C%6.715@typhoon.nyu.edu>,
>         kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> 
> >No, there's more than that: 471.003 starts with "No person other than
> >a duly registered engineer shall practice engineering".  However precisely
> >because the definition of "engineer" in 471.005(6) does not apply to
> >software engineering, the entire statute does not refer to us.
> 
> We really need to take more care in our use of the word "engineering"
> when discussing software.  I post the following in the form of a
> "Devil's advocate," proposition.
> 

snip

> 
> Software engineering is now where Industrial Engineering used to be.
> Most classical engineering, including chemical engineering, are based
> on the measurable forces of physics.   Software practice, in
> general, is not constrained by those forces.  Every engineering practice
> includes some kind of design metrics.  Software practice may proceed
> oblivious to any notion of design metrics.  In fact, design metrics
> are rarely an issue for most software products.  Without design metrics,
> there will never be a discipline we can call software engineering that
> is as credible or respectable as other branches of engineering.

The other engineering disciplines also have a sound basis in mathematics
and have sound mathematical models (or approximations) for what they
do.  I have yet to see a CS program that expects 4 years of math (or at
least 3 years of Calculus, which would be less useful than statistics
and discrete math) where the normal Chemistry, Physics, and Engineering
major is looking at that.

> 

snip

> 
> How many people who call themselves software engineers could pass the
> Professional Engineers exam?  How many reading this message?  That is
> the criteria by which one is allowed to add the initials, PE, to a
> business card or letterhead.  If one cannot pass the PE exam, one is
> not, by commonly accepted standards, an engineer.

I think that you would find a number of these people that could pass the
PE exam (after the normal study.)  The reason I'd say that is the unusal
number of peple programming that are not CS degreed.  I seem to run into
more non-CS degreed people coding than CS degreed people.  In my
experience the Math major made the best programmers (there were too few
people doing actual software engineering to form an opinion as to which
were best.)

This is also a field (using the popular definition) where people with no
degrees (or degrees in English or MDs) are just as likely to write
articles in the popular magazines as people with CS/IS degrees.

You also see a multitude of programming languages and methodologies that
are used based off of the preceived availability of programmers, off the
nearly religious devotion that seems to take over people, or the
availability of shareware/freeware.  In a engineering environment you
would expect these the to be chosen based off of their applicability to
the problem domain and net cost.

> 
> I realize I have probably opened a hornet's nest with this, but it is
> important enough for Ada practitioners to consider since we so often
> tout Ada as a software engineering language.
> 
> Richard Riehle
> http://www.adaworks.com

Ron Skoog