Hacker News Reader

Comment by win311fwg | Hacker News Reader

> Ok so why is all their software such garbage, then?

Because the people involved weren't good at their job...? We've been over this multiple times now. It doesn't seem like it should be hard to figure out. What do you continue to miss?

> but they are not engineers

Sure, software involves lots of different types of work. Engineers are just one tiny piece of the puzzle. But design is exclusively the domain of engineers. Anyone working on the design is an engineer, by definition. That, again, does not imply that they know what they are doing, are good at their job, or bold enough to push back against out-to-lunch stakeholders. Having someone doing engineering work does not magically mean you are going to see an excellent product on the other side. Most people are pretty lousy at what they do.

You, again, increase your chances if you involve PEs, but that's not a job, just a designation.

View on HN

> Anyone working on the design is an engineer, by definition.

You and I have very different definitions of "engineer". To me, an engineer is a licensed professional who adheres to the code of practice for his or her profession. We'll have to agree to disagree on the semantics. I think lots of software people want to call themselves "engineers" because it sounds like someone who should be paid more money.

...or it did, until the AI revolution.

> To me, an engineer is a licensed professional

Again, we’re talking about jobs (and whether they will remain in the future), not professional designations. Licensed professional engineers are usually referred to as PEs, but even if you want to call them engineers it is clear that not all engineers of that sort work in engineering. In context, we can establish that we are talking about engineers in the worker sense, not the professional license sense.

Is English a second language for you? Maybe context doesn’t translate well. English is certainly bad for assigning multiple meanings to words and relying on context to figure out which meaning applies.

> I think lots of software people want to call themselves "engineers" because it sounds like someone who should be paid more money.

How would describing the job by what it is, literally by dictionary definition, garner more money?

I am aware of the time physicians started calling themselves doctors to try and ride on the coattails of academics, so I think I understand the angle you are trying to come up with, but this isn’t like that. In this case engineer was already the word in the dictionary that existed to describe the work.

> To me, an engineer is a licensed professional

Even outside of "software engineering" there are tons of people working jobs that almost everyone would consider "engineering" that don't require a stamp. Chemical engineers, electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, tons. Only ~5% of chemical engineers have passed the PE, I guess there are essentially no real chemical engineers then?

Even in a civil engineering firm, most likely the kind of engineering you're talking about, only about half will actually be licensed and have a stamp. Tons of people will work on a project and figure out a lot of details, then work with the person with the stamp to sign off on the implementation details. Their work is undoubtedly still "engineering", but they don't have a stamp.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com