Software Engineering Body of Knowledge 428
An Anonymous Coward writes: "The IEEE has a project going to establish a Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. I'd recommend that all Slashdotters read this and send comments to this since this project could lead to the officially designating Software Engineers as a real Engineering discipline. That could then mean that licenses could be required to practice software development and that this could to regulation and other legal ramifications." On the surface this looks like a fairly boring document/process, but this is a major step forward - turning software engineering from an art into a science.
What about the PPR? (Score:4, Insightful)
To see the PPR, surf to http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki
Re:What about the PPR? (Score:2, Interesting)
What about my MCSE? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What about my MCSE? (Score:2)
Sounds like you answered your own question.
If you think software engineering isn't any harder than administrating some NT machines or even a whole NT network, you're obviously without the necessary experience to accurately make that judgement in the first place.
Your first sentence is incorrect (Score:2)
No, Microsoft says you are an MCSE. They make no attempt to generalize your skillset beyond that which is required to pass their certification.
Re:Your first sentence is incorrect (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about my MCSE? (Score:2)
Dave
Re:What about my MCSE? (Score:3, Informative)
I do have a real MCSE. And I also realize that any certification program run by a company's marketing department isn't a real certification.
Both kinds: Science and Art! (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree (Score:2)
I dont want software engineering to become some esoteric type of thing like quantum physics, or math, I want it to be something everyone can take part in.
Thats what open source is all about, allowing anyone with knowledge to contribute.
We shouldnt even have "licenses" and so on and so forth because in the real world, its not how many licenses you have, but what you can contribute that matters.
I say its an art and a science, and we shouldnt swing one way or the other, but if people are pushing it toward science, then i'm going to push it toward art, and i'm sure anyone whos a programmer for open source will agree that its an art, unless they work for microsoft and then perhaps its a science.
There is art in all branches of engineering (Score:3, Interesting)
For electrical engineers, the elegance may be in minimzing the number of transistors in a design.
For chemical engineers, the elegance may come on the form of the safety or usefulness of the byproducts of a reaction.
All engineering fields value elegance in method and design. The notion that "art" separates programming from other engineering endeavors is bogus.
Art and Science (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? I don't get the fears.... (Score:3)
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong, but Electrical Engineering is designated a "real Engineering discipline", right? Well I've never taken a course on EE, nor do I have any kind of license or certification, but I'm still allowed to take my radios apart and fix them when they break, right? Why would this official designation of software engineering affect anything? Am I the only one who doesn't get this?
Re:Huh? I don't get the fears.... (Score:2)
(Emphasis added)
Yes, you can fix your own radios. You'd be allowed to write your own software. But would you be allowed to write it commercially?
Re:Huh? I don't get the fears.... (Score:2)
Not a problem. An un-degreed SE would be "allowed" to write commercial software, just as an undegreed EE would be "allowed" to design commercial hardware. (Ever hear of a fellow named Wozniak? Or Dell, for that matter)
Professional engineering licensing/accreditation issues tend to be relevant when government or military contracts are at stake. For instance, no municipality is going to accept a bridge-design proposal from some random dude calling himself a "civil engineer." Likewise, you're not going to work for JPL or NASA unless you can show the necessary professional credentials to indicate competency with metric and English units, for example.
It's true that a few talented engineers have been held back by a lack of degrees and licenses. After WWII, Wernher von Braun had to send off for a mail-order doctorate degree before Congress would take him seriously. But for the most part, this action on IEEE's part isn't something that should scare anyone, IMHO. The IEEE is a rather toothless organization, and no commercial interests are going to let them threaten the supply of talent, accredited or otherwise.
Re:Huh? I don't get the fears.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll give a cookie to the first person who names a company that would be quite happy to control the board overseeing this as-yet imaginary union.
That's not all. (Score:4, Interesting)
But then you need 4 (IIRC) years as basically an apprentice, working full time under the direct supervision of an accredited engineer. Naturally, this is, "We can end your career before it even begins!" internship-type employment.
So we're talking about a bare minimum 7-year investment (more likely 8 or 9) before they'll even look at you. These restrictions have been tightening up, requiring larger and larger investments in time, over the last decades, and I expect it to continue in this manner.
It seems to me that all of our professional organizations are slowly becoming old-fashioned guilds, organized less for the benefit of the general public and more for the members. Organizations in which one doesn't become a full member who can work unsupervised until middle age, assuming one commits oneself in one's youth. They already have the protection of government, so entrenched that nobody ever seems to suggest weakening their monopolies.
Do we really need a Bar Association? Do you think lawyers are more ethical, more beneficial to society because there's a government-granted monopoly to its members on arguing the law on others' behalf? Do you think your area's medical association is doing the best possible job producing competent, efficient doctors with no competition or alternative of any kind?
How many professionals are just wielders of required rubber stamps? How many brilliant young potential innovators are slowly crushed into mediocre clock-watchers, who have been shown again and again that putting your time in, looking respectable, and covering your ass pays off better than doing your job well and advancing the state of the art?
I think that far too few people question the value, competence, and good faith of professional organizations. They're just accepted as natural features of a well-run society, assumed to be the best interface to highly specialized skills without an active evaluation.
I look at them, and see the gradual calcification, then downfall of our society. I see never moving beyond asphalt roads and cars that move at 60 MPH, never moving a viable population off the planet, never extending the average human lifespan beyond 100 years.
I hate to see people talking about moving this kind of influence into software. It's one thing to run competing private organizations that certify certain skills, it's quite another to start legally requiring certification from a particular one, giving it monopoly status. Let alone ceasing to question whether it should keep that status.
Mod this up (Score:2)
I have never before written a lame "mod this up" message but this message is one of the most truthful, profound posts I've read on Slashdot in a long, long time.
The philosophy behind governing and certifications boards is a noble and reasonable approach presuming it was done right, but exactly as this message and the followup mentioned: How many times do you hear about an engineer being discredited, or a lawyer losing their license to practice law? How about doctors losing their license to practice medicine? The reality is that it is almost never (and only in the case of extreme negligence that is publicly known. For all of the talk of Engineers losing their certification I would love to see the numbers who actually have). These organizations exist to protect their members, not this absurdly ridiculous "protect the public" bullshit that hopeful PEOs are spouting on here.
Re:That's not all. (Score:2)
How about a cook? A car driver? A janitor? A construction worker? Any of those could kill you with their incompetence. Do they spend 8 or 10 years in training, supervised work, and examinations before they are allowed to work on their own?
The risk is managed because both they and the people who hire them are liable for any consequences of their incompetence. It is possible to verify skills without a government-granted monopoly on certification.
A decade is too much for a minimum-cost verification of competence, that's practically a lifetime committment. It's hard to recognize competence in such involved fields, but not that hard. In this case, for example, only recently they doubled the experience requirement. Were the previous engineers incompetent? The fact is that the existing members had nothing at all to lose by extending the experience requirement, though this was clearly (through long precedent) not necessary to ensure "a minimum level of competence," as you put it.
The problem is that we give these organizations free rein. They are assumed both ideally competent and to be looking out for society's interests. They are never cut down to size when they start stepping on people's toes in areas where they've never been needed before, or when a field is so developed with other specialized workers that they are reduced to placing their seal on a job already done, instead, their influence constantly grows by tiny increments, until you see such profound idiocies as needing to hire an engineer to verify that your lawnmower shed is structurally sound before you are allowed to build it.
They're not evil, they're not out to stiffle innovation and "calcifify" our society.
Perhaps one day you will understand that sometimes ostensible intention is not the same thing as effect. Nobody writes laws intending to make things worse, but there are bad laws.
responsibility??? (Score:2)
Now who has to get certified, and is legally responsible? Being a code monkey, I already have too much responsibility... don't want more... where do I protest?
Licenses Required? (Score:5, Insightful)
Requiring a license to be a programmer is a bad thing. If you think it will improve software quality, you're mistaken. Think I'm crazy? How many software contributers have an engineering certification? Sorry, no cert, no programming. No open-source software.
OK, so let's change the rules a bit. "You must be certified in order to write commercial software". You think that will help anything? Who determines what classifies as commercial software? Is my Mandrake CD commercial software? If so, does that mean all the software on it, including the free software, is now commercial? Not good.
However, what if there's a non-commercial certification process. Run, not by RedHat or Microsoft, but by a vendor-independent group of engineers. You prove to them that you are a capable engineer/programmer/whatever. They give you a certificate that actually means something. Perhaps require the certification to be re-written every N years.
Now, companies can have a certification that says this person is a software engineer. Not a Microsoft-certified software engineer. Not a RedHat-certified software engineer. An engineer-certified software engineer. No commercial influence, transferrable skills, and a large skill set.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:4, Interesting)
Take the bridge building analogy. If an engineer designs a bridge that falls apart and people die, they are liable. His company may also be liable. If a city engineer put his stamp on the bridge design, then he is also liable, and perhaps the municipality he works for.
Why should software be any different? We get mad when MS Word dies on us and we lose an hours work. Can we sue Microsoft for lost revenue because we missed a deadline because of that, and therefore missed a contract? Probably not (well, I haven't read a EULA lately) but there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to. Actually that was a bad example. Lemme try again.
How about a software firm contracted to write a control system for a city's traffic grid. A bug or poor design causes a set of lights to go on the blink, two people run an intersection and both die in the resulting collision. Who pays the damages? Not sure, perhaps the city... but its not their fault. But they can't pass that onto the software firm... not currently.
But instead, if we had licensed software engineers, who in certain instances like the one above, who were now indefinately liable for their work, and who are required by the customer to "sign off" on it... well, it can only bode well for the quality of software.
The big thing here is that the customer has to demand accountability --> Im sure that big e-commerce data centres demand guaranteed uptime from Microsoft..
As an engineer myself, Im constantly reminded of my responsibility to society. Alright, I don't write code for the space shuttle, or code that flys your 767 to Bermuda. In fact, I don't write code that even sees a customer. But I do write code that tests product (in this case radio systems for police and ems). If I screw up, don't properly test my code, then the product code is not properly tested, and perhaps at a critical moment a system will go down and a police officer facing a dangerous suspect will lose his life. That sucks.
Consumer software should be no different, but we don't demand the accountability.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
Commercial, off-the-shelf software, doesn't require licenced engineers. Shouldn't have the EULA restrictions, but that's a different kettle of fish.
However, only licensed engineers and programmers are allowed to write critical software. They could write regular software as well; it could be a selling point to know that the software is written by someone who both knows what (s)he's doing, and is willing to take accountability for its failures.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
If you believe your software is mission-critical, look for the "Certified Engineer" label I suggested in the parent post. If you have the choice between a cheap, uncertified word processor and an expensive, certified one, weigh your needs. If it needs to be rock-solid, get the certified one. If you can handle the occasional crash, get the cheap one.
Re:Licenses dont prove much (Score:2)
The main problem I see with this is with engineers not being allowed to show their work due to NDAs. Not quite sure how to get around that.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
Because a) building a non-trivial piece of software is lot more complex than building a bridge b) we currently lack the tools to verify the correctness of a software implementation.
The city engineer can do the math to verify the bridge will hold and not collapse. A software engineer is not able to do the same. Testing will never guarantee 100% correctness of code.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
I think not. Building software with the assumption that its correctness is not verified or guaranteed is easy. So is building a bridge if I don't have to take account the calculus, but will rely on common sense ("it looks strong enough, I'm sure it'll hold" -- mind you, this is the attitude we use with building the consumer software today).
If you put the same requirements on consumer software that we put on bridges today (in other words, 100% correctness) then verifying the software will be alot more complex than verifying a design of a bridge.
Well, you can do the same with software.
There's a problem in putting this in practice. Otherwise we wouldn't have satellites worth billions of dollars explode if it was a simple matter to verify the correctness of the software.
However, a civil engineer CAN'T test a bridge!
Yes, so? My point was that testing in software engineering is a cheap replacement for the lack of methods to verify the correctness of software. The civil engineers can build safe bridges without testing because they have a well known axioms they can base their proof of correctness on. This is what is lacking in software engineering.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
I am sure the math is very very complex, and that it is very very easy to make a mistake. That's not the point however. The math behind the bridge design can be proven either correct or wrong. The math we use have been known for centuries.
Proving a software implementation correct has turned out to be alot more difficult task though. Otherwise the software engineers of today would be constructing the proofs routinely, instead of trying to rely on all sorts of different kinds of testing methods.
A properly designed program is inherently flawless because it was designed before it was implemented.
The software engineering field is filled with countless examples of heavy "design first" approach to implementing software. The practice has shown it does not guarantee flawless programs.
If you know each module performs its task and only its task and does it properly, the software won't crash!
Nice theory, but wrong. Why do we have "integration testing" then?
So you'd better make damn sure you get it 100% correct.
Please give examples of software in use today that have been proven 100% correct. I'd be curious to know how many actually exist.
Passing a test doesnt make you a good programmer (Score:2, Insightful)
This idea is just plain stupid. Its an attempt to make programming as esoteric as other scientific fields.
Problem is, we need more programmers not less, why make it hard as hell now to become one by requiring people go to special schools like a doctor has to go to medical school, and requiring they pass all these overly difficult tests ?
Re:Passing a test doesnt make you a good programme (Score:2)
I also don't like exams. Too artificial for me.
Totally not true (Score:2)
Passing a test does not make you a good engineer!! (Score:2, Insightful)
You just dont get it. Programming is not like building a house.
When you build a house, you cannot freely learn from millions of other houses built by taking it apart peice by peice and putting it back together.
Programming allows ANYONE to learn on their own and become a good software engineer.
Passing a test wont prove that you are good, It just proves you are good at passing tests.
The proof should be in your source code.
Perhaps as a test, requiring people write several programs and submit them to a review group, (similar to the driving test) so people can SEE they have skill, would actually be a better idea.
But to give a standard TEST, it doesnt come down to skill, it comes down to how much of the text book you memorized.
Its stupid.
The source code should prove someones worth, not a test.
Re:Passing a test does not make you a good enginee (Score:2)
I am a mechanical engineer (MEng Mech Eng.). I passed lots of tests (barely, I only got a 2.2). But even to get that qualification, I _also_ had to complete team and individual industrial-style projects + have them reviewed. (Designing a recumbent pedal vehicle, and a streamlined body for a vehicle.)
Even so, I'm not really a fully qualified mechanical engineer - I'm not chartered. (I probably never will be, since I started developing software instead, but that's another story.)
I don't know how it works in America, but the way you fully qualify as an engineer (get your charter) in Britain and Ireland _is_ by the mechanical engineering equivalent of writing several programs and submitting them to a review group - the IMechE [imeche.org]. After a few years as a "rookie" mechanical engineer in the industry (usually with a "mentor", an engineering guru to guide you on your way), you submit details of the projects you have worked on for review, and have an unfun interview. If they're up to scratch, you get a charter. The academic tests don't really mean much, beyond a certain basic level of competence, unless you're sticking in academia to do research.
Just as I can happily write programs without being a qualified software engineer, plenty of people can happily design machines without being a mechanical engineer. But qualified mechanical engineers will probably do a better job, and be allowed do it where people's lives are at stake - note how most software says things like "not to be used to run a nuclear reactor" in the license?
Also, mechanical engineers don't go off and reinvent the wheel from scratch either - we don't re-derive the Navier-Stokes equations each time we use them, and, when we're designing something, we used a (gasp!) "component-based approach" - ordering off-the-shelf parts and slotting them together. It keeps the cost down that way, and is a lot like component/ OO programming with a rich standard API. Kinda like writing Java applications, in fact (what I've actually spent the past while doing). Building and Civil engineers use a similar approach for... building houses...
Programming _is_ like building a house. Generally, you're slotting together lots of components that people have already designed. A builder doesn't make his own bricks - bricks come in a selection of standard sizes from the brick factory.
So, why not a similar approach for life-critical Software Engineering?
Re:Passing a test doesnt make you a good programme (Score:2)
Being trained as an Engineer makes you a good designer of systems, no matter what type of system you're designing.
Hooah! This is one of the funniest things I've read in a long time. I have worked with a lot of extremely talented Professional Engineers, and a lot of them I have great respect for. I have also worked for horribly incompetent PEs that have IQs teetering on 100, and have a complete lack of attention for details or what's important. This idea that Engineers are some super discipline is absolutely proposterous: They're just students who took the 5-6 year option rather than the 4 year option, sometimes because they want to parade around going "I'm an Engineer and my title is legally protected".
Software quality is dictated by the process, not by the person. Tell me that your system is a CMM5 system using the IEEE 12207 standard in a 9002 (or whichever one applies) setting, and that you have code review, proper test cases, etc., and THAT tells me whether you have quality code. Telling me that the guy who typed in the initial lines is an Engineer is an absolutely racket and is absurd.
The whole "engineer" designation is nothing more than a protection racket (I'm saying this as a member of two of the groups that have come up during this discussions): It's a way to raise the barriers to entry to say "Oh that guy who has designed 4 fantastic, robust systems in less time than we sat around and scratched our asses sure can produce, but it's not engineering production!". It's job security for those who have gotten an engineering designation. It's absolutely, positively absurd. An individuals knowledge in software development, no matter what their designation, will always be a tiny iota of the industry whole knowledge, making this field totally unlike any other that has come before.
The IEEE rocks, but they should give up on personal certifications (unless they are "no barrier to entry" certifications. I want to know what someone can do, not how much they have martyred themselves) and stick to making standards that make better software quality through better processes and systems.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
Also, to continue the analogy, the engineer doesn't actually construct the bridge; he designs it and certifies it. Same could be true of software: if the appropriate practices are developed, an engineer could certify the work of a hundred non-engineers.
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
Who are you going to trust? (Score:2)
So why not let it stand as a marketing device? If you want software from the lay-hacker, you can choose to buy from him. If you choose to buy it from the certified hacker, you may do so freely.
Within a decade the marketing clout of the certification (if it is worth anything) would put the uncertified hackers out of business. Its just human nature - we look for a degree in the dentists office, don't we?
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
If it is publicized that certification is required to be a programmer, will it be similarly publicized that it only applies to certain software? Or will the media just say that all programmers need certification? What will that do to prospective programmers?
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
Has there ever been a single piece of software that did not include at least one bug after its initial release?
If companies are going to get sued when their software is unstable, they wont make unstable software.
Define "unstable software".
Re:Licenses Required? (Score:2)
If your software crashes or otherwise doesn't work properly, you can sue the company that made it.
You could sue every software company that has ever existed. Software has bugs. Certifying Software Engineers is not going to change that fact.
Developer with no CS Degree (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we suddenly going to stop rewarding initiative, independent learning, flexibility and gumption, and only give credit to people who were lucky enough to figure out their career paths in their late teens, unlike me? Proposterous!
Re:Developer with no CS Degree (Score:4, Informative)
Electricians and electrical technicians aren't useless. They can get good jobs, they just can't legally design commercial electrical products (unless they work under a supervising engineer, of course).Electrical Engineers go through Ethics courses and Occupational Safety courses, and they have to take responsibility for the things they make.
If a professional Engineer designs something, it _MUST_ work as specified. If it doesn't, the consumer can sue the engineer that made it. With software (which is not made by engineers) doesn't work, you can't do much about it. That's the difference between engineers and non-engineers.
No, we would ALL have to be recertified (Score:2)
Re:Developer with no CS Degree (Score:5, Insightful)
What you need to consider is:
Do you really consider you know as much about the structure of programs (in general), putting software together, and have as broad an overview and experience as someone who's spent 20 years intensively studying and applying software, and trying to refine it to it's optimum, and is at least as talented as you?
The idea of accreditation is that you take people with the talent, and subject them to several years of rounded exposure to the whole of the discipline, so they don't fall foul of errors caused by lack of understanding of associated areas. You then test these people to ensure that they don't make the stupid mistakes that can and frequently are made by people applying good methodology in a stupid way (it happens).
What is being rewarded is people who went into a field because they liked it, and followed it, and gained experience. Don't call it luck, 'cos I don't buy that.
You chose your path, they chose theirs, and perhaps, just perhaps, they're being rewarded for the initiative, independant learning, flexibility and gumption they showed in choosing their career because it's what they wanted to study in the first place!
If you consider that in 11 months, you're on par with some of the old timers that HAVE been in the game for 20 or 30 years (I've worked with some in my time), then, I think you're exactly the kind of person that shouldn't be an engineer.
These things take time. If you want full accreditation, you should be prepared to do the graft and sweat that the rest of the world put in, even if it means going back to study full time again for several years, to re train from another discipline.
It seems that perhaps the move is partly to prevent the influx of people who've suddenly realised that there's a fast buck to be made in the computing world, and take a fast track that trains intensively in one area, to get them able to perform programming tasks, and these people pushing that envelope into areas they were never trained for.
I'm sure you're very good at what you do, and I'm in no way trying to take away from you what you have achieved, and yes, I agree, it's quite an achievement. I just ask you not to belittle those people who had the insight to choose their career early and stick to it.
As to the cries I hear here in the UK so often of "Oh, but that's so ELITIST!".. Well, yes. But I'd rather be travelling in a plane programmed by a set of guys who have proven themselves to be the elite by many years of peer review and monitoring, than a bunch of guys who thought maybe this would be the best way to assemble an avionics system, although they couldn't quite put on paper why that was so...
Knowing the Slashdot of today, it's quite likely this will be modded down, but, I've worked with gurus claiming to be fools, and fools claiming to be gurus, and I say what I see.
Malk
Re:Developer with no CS Degree (Score:2, Interesting)
Already a real engineering discipline. (Score:2, Informative)
Legal Status of the term 'Engineer' (Score:2, Interesting)
However, this dosn't stop everybody and their dog from calling themselves engineers! Not that I really care, I just find it one of the most abused words out there. How many people out there call themselves doctors who don't have a medical degree.
Re:Legal Status of the term 'Engineer' (Score:2)
Not only that, but this protection is at least somewhat enforced. A Canadian university which shall remain anonymous recently received an official letter demanding that its "Software Engineering" program be renamed because the university wasn't properly certified to hand out engineering degrees.
Re:Legal Status of the term 'Engineer' (Score:2)
So is that "Dr. Anonymous Coward, Ph.D" ?
Important Subject (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Important Subject (Score:2)
Would you prefer someone fresh out of a CSEng degree, or someone who has 10 years of real-world experience (equivalent to at least a Master's degree in the same field)?
You do realize that real world experience is treated by most universities and employers as equivalent to education? eg. two years in the field will take you from a BSc degree to a Master's degree *automatically*, as far as any University is concerned.
Just a thought...
Simon
Re:Important Subject (Score:2)
In many larger companies, each group is headed by a PE, who has to sign-off on the work of those below him. Having a certified engineer helps them if they run into any legal problems, as they could show the court they had a certified competant engineer say it was good.
Comming from this angle, I don't really see any push towards having a -serious- software engineering licence until somebody gets sued for writing/releasing buggy code. The industry is going to need to be seriously afraid of releasing crap before they make efforts to change things, since they're making money and not putting themselves at risk.
Re:Important Subject (Score:2)
Engineering is the practice of designing things based on underlying science. An engineer in theory deeply understands (or at least at one time understood) the principles upon which his work is based. A technician, by contrast, knows how to do specific tasks and knows specific information, but does not have the background to understand those techniques. An engineer can create by understanding... a technician by tinkering.
I shudder to imagine a certification process of software engineers. It would either be so broad that you would need a post-doc education to get through it, or it would be too narrow to apply to the whole field. The past certification practices have really been technician certification, not engineer certification. An "MCSE" is an oxymoronic title - it should be a "Microsoft Certified Software technician!"
In software, we do not have an underlying science. Instead, we have an eclectic mixture of abstract math, techniques, fads, management techniques, language design, artificial intelligence, etc. We don't have a cohesive definition or understanding of computer engineering.
In many ways, I think computer science is more like a biological "engineering" area - such as pharmaceutical development. In both cases, there are pieces of the underlying mechanisms that are well understood, but there are large missing pieces in areas important to the task of reaching a solution.
Furthermore, computer systems design is such a broad area that it could not become a single discipline. Designing business applications software is vastly different than designing neural net pattern recognizers (although the latter are actually used in the former). Not only are the techniques almost unrelated - so are the educational requirements.
I live in Québec. (Score:2)
I'm a developer.
I don't have the ring. (-:
The engineering licencing exams (Score:2)
After going through graduate computer science/software engineering, I can't see how a CS ciriculum is going to prepare students for this "engineering" test.
The states make you an engineer, and unless they are all going to impliment a standard and separate cs engineering test, I don't see it flying.
Computer science pay is much much higher than
civil engeering..
License to practice engineering? (Score:3, Insightful)
Needing a license to practice only applys to CERTAIN types of engineers doing CERTAIN projects. I can tell you right now that if you go to work for Intel, but don't have an EE, you're not going to be arrested or anything. Sure, Intel may be taking a chance, but that's their problem. Now, Civil Engineers designing bridges is a different issue.
I expect it would be the same for software engineering. Good (and neerly necessary) to have the certification, but it won't impede Free Software in any way.
Licensed to do what? (Score:2, Interesting)
I do mostly low level coding, firmware, device drivers, things of that nature. I can interface with anything I can get a spec for.
I do not, however, know much at all about application development. I do not know much about writing an OS. I do not know much about game development. Yes, I can understand the concepts involved, but that differs from having the familiarity required to do those things with confidence in my abilities.
I agree that making software less of an "art" would help large corporations take fewer risks in hiring coders. While not a big fan of "That which benefits M$ benefits America", I can also see the side benefit of helping to separate the real developers from the web weenies.
Until we have only one platform, however, with only one API, only one programming language, and only one conceptual model (ie, OO, which I personally dislike), software development *MUST* remain an art.
Software Engineering Code of Hygiene (Score:3, Funny)
Some observations from a non-software engineer (Score:5, Interesting)
To me an essential part of engineering has always been a sense of responsibility to society as a whole. Technology is harnessing natural forces in a way that provides benefit to someone or some group. Engineers try to ensure that this technology is used is as safe a fashion as possible. Minimization of risk. Planes stay in the air, bridges don't fall down, the water is safe to drink.
The article is hopelessly
The other side of the responsibility coin is liability. Engineers must show due diligence and carry liability insurance. It would likely be easier to insure an accredited software engineer working on a mission critical system.
I'm anxious to see what might come out as accreditation criteria for software engineers. I hope it would require some knowledge of the larger technological context and social responsibility.
Unfortunately you are preaching to the wrong crowd (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unfortunately you are preaching to the wrong cr (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately you are preaching to the wrong cr (Score:2)
Firstly, I made no claims of my own regarding the quality of Microsoft code. That said,Microsoft software has improved. Drastically. Its the crap they've had on the market for ten years that is the source of angst.
Re:Some observations from a non-software engineer (Score:2)
Planes stay in the air and bridges don't fall down, not because the engineers who built them were "accredited," but because if that were to happen, the engineering firm that built the plane or the bridge would be in breach of contract and would be sued into oblivion.
The role of government in a free market society is to enforce legally binding contracts, not to make a straw-horse licensing scheme to make us all feel warm and fuzzy about the people who manage our water and build our bridges. Believe me, if engineers were held accountable directly to the people for the quality of service they provided, they would provide a good service not for some sense of responsibility to the people around them, but because they would want to save their own hides. Let's use the strongest motives in the best possible way.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Re:Some observations from a non-software engineer (Score:2)
I think engineers are also driven by the cost/economy of the designs they create. It's a balance of conflicting requirements.
For example, if you study the history of bridge building, you'll find that Galileo's formula for the strength of the cantilever bean was wrong. Yet bridge builders used it successfully, because of large safety factors they used.
But the requirement to reduce costs, reduced the safety factors, until bridges started failing. Only then someone reexamined the formula they all used and discovered an error.
Only if companies adopt this policy... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problems with certification (Score:5, Informative)
We have had some discussion on the C++ newsgroups recently, regarding the possibility of getting a decent C++ certification scheme started in the industry. Bear in mind that we're talking about a major language here, and one that has an incredibly high number of "users" who don't really know the first thing about it -- or worse, get that first thing wrong -- but think they're experts. There is no single commercial body that "owns" C++, so no political spin needs to be put on things. Basically, this is a prime candidate for certification.
Except that we concluded viable certification was not going to happen. Without a major industrial sponsor, and without a large body of experts who are actually qualified to administer the necessary tests, you'd never get it off the floor.
And what would "certified in the use of C++" mean, anyway? There are many different areas of C++ programming, and while some projects use most/all of them, other projects would never use, for example, much of the STL. To have any practical use, any certification would have to be more precise than just "good at C++".
Remember, this is just one language, and still the expert population felt it would be impossible to provide an effective recognition in today's environment. What hope can anyone have of effectively regulating software engineering as a whole in this today's development world, then? There are more contradictions in this industry than anywhere else I've ever seen, with some companies successfully using development methods for years where other companies have failed completely using the same methods. Who's to say, with any justification or authority, which methods a "chartered software engineer" should use?
Whats the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is so difficult about going through Stroustrup's book and picking three or four topics per chapter and formulating questions from them? Some could be true/false, some multiple choice, and some requiring you to "write" code snippets. It seems pretty straightforward.
The problem is when most "expert" groups discuss this topic, they typically look for a test they could get perfect in, based on the fault assumption that their perfect mastery of C++ must result in a perfect score.
Re:The problems with certification (Score:2)
Why not? Because programming is no more science than art and no more art than science. Yet.
I have big dreams for programming. I dream of one day it being an engineering discipline. Today it isn't. At least not as practiced by most software developers.
A chemical engineer posted earlier talking about responsibility to society. I agree, but he's also talking about a very small percentage of programmers. I write database systems. If someone uses my DB system for a life-critical function without my knowledge, well, their bad. If they ask my opinion, I'll say, "Don't use it for a life-critical system."
It comes down to this. It's art, with some science, until it becomes life critical. At that point, it MUST be engineering. That's the difference, though. The application, not the skill. Programming will always be on the fringe of engineering with a lot of "art" involved. At least in the forseeable future.
Is this a bad thing? I don't know. Aspiring to engineering is, in some ways, a good thing, but look at all the good stuff that came out of lone programmers, working out of their basements, with no degrees, writing cool software. It's happened, and it will continue to happen.
typical the US call things science (Score:2)
science is about trying things out understanding things
Very little to with enginering
(yes they work on many of the same concepts and engineers would not exist without scientists)
engineering is boring repeatable stuff churning out things at the same standard how many software releases are of EXACTLY the same quality
arrgh
john jones
Re:typical the US call things science (Score:2)
Aren't philosphers trying to understand things? Isn't everyone? This is a flawed definition.
Simply put, science is defined as a field that uses the scientific method.
The scientific method is hypothesis-experiment-result-conclusion.
This is why math is not a science - there are no "experiments" in math.
Computer science does use experimental methods from time to time - I know of one case where sorting algorithms were applied to real-world data to test the hypothesis that a quicksort using a randomized pivot would be superior. Since the pivot was randomized, the only way to tell if it was better was to test it.
Re:typical the US call things science (Score:2)
Math has no "truths", only axioms.
There is (probably) only Statistics, the measurement of experiments.
Huh?
Certify Software, not Software Engineers (Score:3, Insightful)
Certified software is tested and putatively immutable, and you can always throw more testing at it if you think it needs it.
DO-178B [google.com] procedures require that all software designs and implementations be reviewed and tested, the tests reviewed, and the reviews reviewed, by different engineers--or companies--wherever practicable. And it comes with different levels of certification, to allow cost reduction where lower levels of risk are involved.
--Blair
(Note to web surfers, if you want to go to yahoo.com, say, to find standards links, do not mis-type the domain as "yaho.com". Trust me on this. I also advise everyone to use Panicware's free Pop-up Stopper [panicware.com]. This node is getting wrapped right now.)
Professionalizing Software is Premature (Score:5, Insightful)
- Codifying a set of "best practicies" that, when applied, assure a solid
product.
- Codifying educational programs that teach these best practices.
- Certifying people who graduate from the educational process as "Software
Engineers".
The big problem with this idea is step 1: Sure, we have best practices, but they do not assure a solid product. By far, the highest assurance practice to date for developing working software is to make sure the developers have a lot of talent and dedication. There are software engineering best practices, but when goobers apply them, they are fully capable of producing bloated non-working crap. This is characteristic of an art, not an engineering discipline.It is very nice that people are sufficiently concerned about software quality and its impact on the real world (e.g. comp.risks). But this in no way means that we actually have best practices that will assure that mediocre developers can produce working product. Wishing for it (or mandating it) will not make it so.
Crispin
--
Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
Available for Purchase [wirex.com]
Back asswards (Score:2)
The goal is failure avoidance.
There are software engineering best practices, but when goobers apply them, they are fully capable of producing bloated non-working crap.
I think you're blowing smoke. What are these best practices that produce crap? No one said best practices would make stupidity obsolete, so please don't tell me about people misapplying or misusing well-defined practices.
It is very nice that people are sufficiently concerned about software quality and its impact on the real world (e.g. comp.risks). But this in no way means that we actually have best practices
The two are completely independent in any case...so what are you saying? Obviously we know some best practices in software engineering...don't use GOTO, comment your code, use a debugger...come on, are you telling me that in fifty years of programming we haven't learned anything?????
Re:Professionalizing Software is Premature (Score:2)
In traditional engineering disciplines, the laws of physics apply and do not change. On these laws, best practices have been built. No matter where you apply these practices, you can be sure the laws supporting them are just as they were before and will be tomorrow. This covers most of the work we consider "engineering."
In software development, there is less solid stuff to build our rules on. Heck, the very hardware changes all the time
I agree 100% that it is premature to expect software engineering to match mechanical/electrical/civil/chemical engineering in predictability today. However, it is self eviedent that there are some things we should expect all professionals to apply as a best practice. (e.g., Document your d*mn code, apply good naming conventions, get user buy in, keep backups, etc.)
Re:Professionalizing Software is Premature (Score:3, Insightful)
Even in traditional engineering disciplines knowing the laws of physics may not help much. For example, consider civil engineers who try to control floods. We understand the basic physical process (i.e. gravity pulls water down), but the system of rivers etc, interacting with the weather is chaotic, and there is no scientific theory that tell us where to build dams to stop floods.
The problem is that engineers are asked to build things, whether the science to help them exists or not.
Who's there (Score:2)
I did a quick search in the list and found very few people from big name universities, with all the four big names in the field (software engineering is not my cup of te) that I know missing.
This makes me wonder if this process has any credibility then... Anybody out there who can comment (intelligently) on this?
No certification for me please (Score:2)
In fact, I've often found that my lack of formal background is a help rather than a hindrance. I'm often able to think outside of the traditional engineers paradigm. Because of that, I often see other developers being surprised at something I though up, that they never would have tried just because their training told them that sort of thing doesn't work. Since I work in distributed middleware and DB research, coming up with new things is kind of the point.
-Hobo
Certification: About Time (Score:2)
If you allow anyone to program professionally, then you must be prepared for more terrible code.
And please spare me the anecdotes about the English major who is the world's best programmer - we don't architect our socirty on corner cases. Added to which, there would be ample opportunity for non-CS grads to gain the certification where it to become required.
Read "After the Goldrush" (Score:2)
By Steve McConnel. I used to fear licensing software engineers until McConnel explained what being an engineer *really* means.
You can still write software, even for commercial purposes. In fact, there would be many situations why a sotware engineer is not what you need.
In any given engineering shop, there's only a handful of licensed engineers. There are still other engineers there who do the work, but the licensed engineer oversees the work and ensures due dilligence and best practices are used. In electronics, there are electronic technicians who don't have engineering degrees who design electronics. Instead, those places have a single licensed engineer who will oversee the final design and inspect it.
Do not fear software engineering: embrace it!
For the record, I do not qualify for licensing as a software engineer, but a licensed software engineer wouldn't mind hiring me to work on his team.
Software is not an engineering discipline. (Score:2)
The next thing you know, people who write will want to be known as 'book engineers.'
Hardware is engineering. Software is simply telling the machine what to do. An engineer designs ACS. An engineer does not write the specifications to mill the parts created by the ACS, although he might be involved in the *LOW LEVEL* programming that controls the physics of the thing.
If there is to be a software engineer, it should be limited to the software the directly interacts with physical systems (ie, ACS).
As always, just my opinion.
SCH - Aerospace Engineer.
Accountability is key ...... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a number of theories regarding why software fails. There are many studies, papers, etc... I have even been involved in a few of them. I don't know of any study or organization who feels that - at the very heart of the problem - is a shortage of licensing. At best, some sort of licensing -- might -- be of some benefit, but I don't believe that should be the first or foremost solution towards addressing software quality problems.
Many years ago, Scientific American magazine had an article on software; this article cited complexity as the reason software fails. I disagree. There are arguments about how complex software is - the difficulties associated with testing all computation branches and [execution] flows through a program (exponention, NP-C problems), testing software and module linkages, data typing and related matters, and many other issues. My experience and understanding is that most software problems relate to poorly thought out requirements, poorly documented changes, work done under time pressure, and a host of what I will call "fundamental" failings from software developers.
I think that advanced training in software - degrees with math components, and formal software engineering training can be genuinely helpful. A great problem is organizations that do not know or care about the consequences of flawed work going out the door.
Ultimately, with or without any form of licensing, I see one major step that would help software quality - ACCOUNTABILITY. There must be legal liability for software that doesn't work, or is purely dangerous. The onus must be on the producers of software to do the job properly.
I know software can be large, and can be complex - but it also often sloppy, poorly thought out, and problems are considered post-release headaches.
My presentation at H2K (Hackers on Planet Earth, 2000) addressed some of these issues. The presentation focused on Ethics in Military and Civilian Software Development. You can find this online from http://www.2600.com, and then following the link to the presentation. I have other papers that discuss this and related issues, also on my web site.
Sam Nitzberg
sam@iamsam.com
http://www.iamsam.com
Perspective of Canadian Software Engineer Student (Score:2, Informative)
I was speaking to one of the members of the CEAB who visted LU on Monday. He recieved his P. Eng designation first in Electrical Engineering then later in Software. He said that the purpose of the Software Engineer should be for critical systems, namely those that if the fail, would put people in danger. The same as Electrical, Chemical, Mechanical or Civil or other Engineering professions.
This doesn't mean that only software engineers can work on such projects. It means that before the software is used it must be approved or 'stamped' by a Software Engineer with a P. Eng designation.
This is not currently required by law in Canada (AFAIK).
Again, this doesn't mean that all programs have to be written by software engineers, or approved by engineers. It is just proposed for software that is life-endangering.
For more information:
P.S. Education alone does not an engineer make! It is the combination of education and engineering.
P.P.S It is also possible to become an Professional Engineer without attending an accredited program. Several requierments must be met but it is possible.
Proj Management Body of Knowledege - for SE (Score:2, Informative)
All the IEEE seem to be doing is codifying current 'best practices' in software engineering in a similar manner to the Project Management Institutes [pmi.org] (ANSI std) "Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge"
SE *is* project management as far as I've experienced it, or a subset. No-one with any sense would ever suggest that stds will prevent cockups in projects - but being totally ignorant of what many considers best practices will make you more likely to stuff things up.
I really can't see why developers get so upset about groups trying to put up hand-rails and guidelines for managing large projects.
If you're sitting coding up a wee access database for a mate or writing a little bash script to check your logs then you don't need them - but projects of a larger scale, involving many organisations and multiple teams DO benefit from guidelines.
Dave
No more licensing! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no, no, no, NO, NO, NO!!! Keep the government AWAY from it all, for pity's sake! We don't want legislation to dictate who can and cannot write software. In my county, my wife and I are not allowed to cut each others' hair in the privacy of our own home. Because beauticians got together some time ago and petitioned the government to make it illegal to cut hair without a "license." To get a license, you have to go to a qualified beauty school and then spend so many hours cutting hair in professional, and authorized, salons.
Of course, they then artificially limit the number of beauty schools that they allow to train for such licenses. The same thing happened in the medical profession. This sort of thing is routinely done by factional groups to pressure the government to create a stranglehold on the market, reducing supply and thus letting them charge more for their services.
In the long run, it only winds up hurting us all by driving the price up while not increasing the quality of the services we receive. Do you really think that having an "official license" makes doctors better than they would be otherwise? Are "certified" Microsoft Engineers any more qualified to work with Microsoft products than the rest of us?
Bad and good beauticians and doctors can be singled out by this little phenomenon called reputation. We don't need a piece of "official" government legislation to be mandated on all who want to enter the market in some lame attempt to make things better than they would be without the artificial intervention (do a search for "Adam Smith and invisible hand").
Let anyone who wants to write software professionally, whether or not they have a degree, license, or whatever, and let the buyer beware. Let each entity build a reputation, and the market will pick the best man for the job.
Needing a licence to develop software... (Score:2, Offtopic)
You're the ones who think that bug-free code comes from testing and debugging, rather from design.
You're the ones who say "with today's processors, I can afford to waste resources here," not realizing that inefficiency accumulates.
You're the ones who don't bother to make sure you're checking return codes properly, or checking them at all.
You're the ones who spend more time programming and less time planning a large project.
You're the ones who think there is such as thing as a "releasable hack", a "production-quality kludge."
You're the ones who think open-source is immune to all this.
You're the ones who will quickly dismiss what I'm saying, or nitpick me to death.
I don't know why I bother.
no (Score:2)
Mutual Exclusion Syndrome isn't good for anyone!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"On the surface this looks like a fairly boring document/process, but this is a major step forward - turning software engineering from an art into a science."
On the surface viewing Software Engineering as all science and no art makes for boring documents and processes. When people are bored, they naturally don't do nearly as good a job. Indeed, the best Software Engineers have the science part down cold, but also have a natural instinct that is the direct manifestation of their artistic inclination. Art and Science are the Yin and Yang of Software Engineering, and to remove or diminish the role of either is to diminish the effectiveness of the software developer(s), regardless of which one you mistakenly choose to emphasize.
If one wants to improve the overall quality of their software they must develop both their left and right brain. To shun one in favour of the other is folly. It is no different than strengthening one leg and cutting of the other in an attempt to be more mobile. Hopping around on that one remaining leg will certainly make it big and strong, but mobility will suffer almost detrimentally. I guess that makes it a major unbalanced hop toward the different, and less effective, not a major step toward anything.
Perhaps these people have never heard of the Software Engineering Institute [cmu.edu] and the Capability Maturity Model? Then again, what do I know? I'm too artistic to be any good at Software Engineering
Too much process, not enough content (Score:4, Insightful)
The Association for Computing Machinery withdrew its support [acm.org] for this SWEBOK effort, after deciding that their approach to licensing practioners was inappropriate. So this probably isn't going anywhere.
In comparison with other engineering disciplines, the real problem is that we don't have a good handle on how to build software with huge safety margins so that it doesn't need to be engineered.
This seems confusing, until you look at, say, structural engineering. If you want to build something, there are standard handbooks that will tell you how to build something that's much stronger than it really needs to be, but won't fall down. That's how most houses are designed. Only when you get into more complex construction (steelwork, arches, laminated wood beams, etc.) do you need a licensed professional engineer to sign off (literally) on the blueprints.
We don't explicitly make that distinction for software. With fifty years of computing behind us, it may be time to do that.
A good place to start would be control software for anything with more than some minimal amount of energy. (For example, programming a VCR control CPU wouldn't require certification, but a garage door opener control would.) We could then go on to, say, software that handles the money of others, and perhaps to networking software that can affect more than 100 users at a time.
A formal distinction of which software matters and which doesn't is the first step. The industry needs to take that step.
Engineering is not science (Score:2)
And the second from the current (Nov 19) issue of The New Yorker from an article about the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center:
But my favorite quote about engineering and science is the one that says:
Re:Engineering is not science (Score:2, Informative)
Too Many Vested Interests, Too Many Uncertainties (Score:4, Insightful)
The basic problem is that there is simply no consensus in the industry as to what constitutes "good engineering" in software, beyond a certain very basic level. We're a very, very young discipline, and unlike structural or electronic engineering the mathematics does not exist to prove what we are doing is right.
In the absence of any real proveability in our craft, all you can do is make broad pronounciations, and then quibble about their interpretations. You can say "testing is good", but you'd never get a room full of programmers to agree whether test-first programming is better than testing completed code, and nobody's yet been able to determine which is more efficient under which circumstances. Similarly, you can say "well-designed code is good", but who's going to moderate the dispute between the CMM waterfall three month design phase group, the moderate Agile "design the module just before you code it" group, and the eXtreme "design is something you achieve as a by-product of merciless refactoring" party.
I have little faith in the mission of this group, as I can't ever see it coming up with a satisfactory document. Either the qualification for being a software engineer will be so broad as to be useless, or (more likely) it will mean that the industry will continue on as it always has, we'll just go back to being called programmers, and spend our time scoffing at certified "software engineers" as followers of an arcane, broken methodology.
Charles Miller
Programming in Practice (Score:2)
Wrong, as usual. (Score:3, Insightful)
That could then mean that licenses could be required to practice software development
Sigh. No.
It would mean you couldn't go calling yourself a Software Engineer if you're NOT, but nobody is going to card you trying to buy a copy of VC++.
software engineering -- tried and failed already (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Creating Software is not Engineering (Score:2, Insightful)
Now for the systems that I hope were not designed in a purely 'artful' manner: Aircraft control systems, my microwave oven, the telecom switches that connect me to emergency services, chemical/nuclear process control systems, automotive control systems, traffic light control systems, fire control system on a smart bomb, nuclear attack early warning systems, pacemaker control system, computerized medical equipment (life support, anaylsis equipment...etc.), electronic infrastucture for commerce...etc..
These are all S/W application areas that demand an engineered solution. That means that the system performs the required functionality correctly, meets the required level of reliability, and does not perform unintended actions in either normal or extrordinary circumstances.
Artistic qualities do play a role in design & implementation, but it is not the only quality required to build & test such systems.
Could you imagine someone 'artistically' testing such a system? "Well, the system 'felt' right...I think we should ship it." "Oh, it failed! It killed 300 people! Tsk."
Last word; Programming != S/W engineering.
Re:Creating Software is not Engineering (Score:2, Insightful)
Computer SCIENCE is very much part of mathematics. Denying it just proves that you slept through class, or avoided taking the hard classes because they had math in them.
Computer SCIENCE comes up with tools like VDM and Z (formal methods) that can be applied by ENGINEERS to verify that the software that was built.
Application Software construction is very much like movie-making already. You usually have a director (architect/designer), lighting and camera-crews (database and graphics experts) and so on. However, they all use tools like cameras, lights, and cranes (compilers, database engines, Open-GL drivers). These tools are usually certified by ENGINEERS who have used the processes that SCIENCE gave them.
Beautiful stuff does come out of the IEEE. 802.11b for example. Wi-Fi or Airport the marketing departments are calling it. Quite popular these days, apparently.
Re:Professionalizing would help w/H-1B abuse (Score:2)
Actually, a lot of the H1Bs are qualified, because a lot of them use F1 (student) visas to get into the country in the first place. And the foreigners are more determined to go through such steps. If qualifications were so important, it would give companies all the more reason to choose a foreign national with a masters, than a US citizen who's graduated from a related degree (eg math or electrical engineering ). You're not going to keep foreigners out by raising the bar.
Re:Feh! (Score:2)
Because they are responsible for all the technology you use on a daily basis?
And no, it wasn't programmers that build the first calculator. It was a stodgy old electrical dweeb.
Seriously, I think that software that is used in critical applications should be subject to competancy requirements. Like the saying goes, if our buildings were designed like our software is, the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization.
Otherwise licensing is a waste of time.
And that is how it is done in other disciplines as well. Licenses are only required for work in certain areas - otherwise anyone who can convince a company that he can do a job can work as a engineer.
Re:Software Engineer != Coder (Score:2)
Design, testing and analysis is part of programming. There really isn't much of a role for people who don't understand and can't learn design, analysis and testing ( I suppose they can design web pages or something, but that's about it).
OTOH, management is a different issue. A programmer needn't be a good manager. An engineer needn't be a good manager either. Engineering and management are not the same thing.