Yes, there is no formal standard or certification, and that opens the door for charlatans and sloppy crap.
No, designing and implementing software systems well requires planning, fail safes, redundancy and all kind of things "physical" engineers deal with.
It may be time to certify to differentiate between script kiddies and the folks managing the software systems that back our modern world.
Degrees that the people who wrote software you regard well probably didn't have, and people writing software you dislike do? Quickly outdated written tests? Years of experience when a common refrain is 1 year of experience x times?
I work with safety critical systems. I still haven't found a better way to evaluate people than having a conversation because none of the overt metrics have correlated well with my "won't get people killed" rating.
I'm not advocating for senseless beaurocratic hurdles, but you have to admit that standards for software have fallen as more people have entered the industry.
Would you get surgery from someone in a back alley? Is that credentialist crap?
This industry is still within memory of the first digital computers. Now we have lots of rote work, some interesting and novel areas, and a small sliver of wacky innovation. But I think many here cherish that self-image of the self-taught inventor… this is “hacker” news after all. I for one am not ready to give someone undue credibility because of a title or piece of paper.
Why do you need credentials to differentiate these two?
Software has built a lot of modern toys but it still plays a relatively limited role in the world of atoms rather than bits, but I suspect the value of credentials is going to appreciate as that changes over the next few decades.