Call for a Professional Programmers' Association
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
gggustafson wrote:
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes
In my first year, I caused 4 m3 of quick drying cement to drop to the factory floor, and I was not accountable; if I was accountable, I'd quit programming. Moreover, if you hold people personally responsible, no one would work at MacDonalds even. Let's not talk hospitals, where they cut people open without personal responsibility.
gggustafson wrote:
I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization
Like schooling and getting a degree? That is different from being accountable, that's simply verifying someone has a certain level of knowledge. Now, I tried to get into school this year, but I do not have enough education to start at that school.
gggustafson wrote:
My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?"
Basically, no. The manager is to blame in that case. It works like that in every occupation, even for cleaners.
gggustafson wrote:
It is for this reason that certification is required.
It is rather hard to get work without any certification or any other creds. It is not required; capitalism would erase those businesses that fail on delivery, wouldn't it?
gggustafson wrote:
The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software.
A journeymen? :D
gggustafson wrote:
I believe
Which is allowed, but keep that nonsense in your church. We measure, instead of believing.
gggustafson wrote:
For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost.
I do like our socialist system in the Netherlands, but why would/should this be about programmers, instead of
-
While I agree that companies should hire qualified programmers, I don't believe they should be held accountable. It is the companies responsibility to provide the resources and time necessary to complete the task and when done to test it. Complex programs are almost impossible to be 100% bug free so the question is what is acceptable?
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness". PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
Do we hold bankers or politicians accountable? Why would I take responsibility, if I have no influence on budget or time-management? :^)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
As others have said, programmers have little control over any part of the software development process: 1. We do not control the specification - it is given to us by the customer or by Marketing 2. We have little control over the design - it is often driven by hardware requirements 3. We have some control over the coding 4. We do not control the QA, testing, or acceptance tests 5. And most important - we control neither the schedule nor the budget Why should we be held responsible for the results of other people's decisions?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
As others have said, programmers have little control over any part of the software development process: 1. We do not control the specification - it is given to us by the customer or by Marketing 2. We have little control over the design - it is often driven by hardware requirements 3. We have some control over the coding 4. We do not control the QA, testing, or acceptance tests 5. And most important - we control neither the schedule nor the budget Why should we be held responsible for the results of other people's decisions?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
You said it way better than I ever possibly could have. You don't need programmers to know everything about everything; you bring in the experts in their various fields and have them put the specs together. The programmer implements it. Someone who's not the programmer needs to sign off on it. Plus everything you mentioned.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
IMHO, a simpler first step for managements to institutionalise/mandate System Level FMEA, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, in addition to Software Testing. Such a system level FMEA would at least help to recognise and possibly resolve all failure modes before release.
-
Programmers have very little say over the design of complex systems. The 737 Max disaster was not programing but engineering design based. First the shifting of the weight of the more efficient engines unbalanced the craft making the plane tail heavy. So on take off it was possible that the pilot might not notice the plane tipping it's nose up and climbing into a dangerous stall condition. The sensor to detect this bad angle of attack was placed on the nose of the plane but the engineering design called for two sensors staggered on either side of the nose. However, there was no room for two sensors and redundant paths to the control computer. So the physical design was changed to a single sensor and a single point of failure. In order to avoid a costly re-certification of the air craft the decision was made that the system was only there as a fail safe and would only correct the tilt of the plane in the unlikely event the pilot chose the wrong angle on ascent. So the details of the new system were buried in the manual and no training of the pilots was called for. So we all know what happened. The sensor failed on take off, the system thought the craft was climbing into a stall and corrected by forcefully driving the nose of the plane down. The pilot was assailed with stall alarms, too low pull up, pull up, alarms. Fighting with the controls to try and pull the plane up the plane began to follow a roller coaster ride of wildly pulling up and being driven back down. In the mean time the co-pilot was desperately thumbing through the manual to find out how to cancel the correction system. Unfortunately, the physics behind these large planes only gave the pilot 10 to 15 seconds of time to get the plane under control before the crash was inevitable. So who was at fault here. The programmer who coded the control system? The engineers who designed a redundant sensor and control system, the management that made a decision to go with a single sensor to eliminate the cost of redesigning the entire front nose of the plane to accommodate a sensor that was only needed in the edge case of a craft that was heading at too steep an ascent angle and would stall, the management that decided that recertifying the plane would place them at a significant disadvantage in the marketplace and so skipped training the pilots on how this new safety system worked. Or the company that wanted to stick a more efficient engine onto the existing frame of a plane to recapture market share that was lost to competing companies?
Thank you for pointing out the real facts behind the 737 Max. This: ". In order to avoid a costly re-certification of the air craft the decision was made" is the nutshell of the real reason the a/c ran into problems. Boeing had made significant design changes that should have forced recertification, but it was a huge marketing effort to avoid that. The 737 Max was sold as an improved variant of the 737 when nothing could be further from the truth. Toss in a cozy relationship with the FAA, and a disaster was inevitable. The737 Max was a systems engineering failure.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
Gus, have you watched Uncle Bob Martin's series of videos on what it means to be a professional programmer? He echoes similar sentiments but holds an entire organization accountable. Worth watching. At my shop, we strive to follow his principles. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I've had numerous different job titles over the years: junior programmer, technical writer, programmer, software engineer, senior engineer. I call myself a computer engineer, one because that's what my B.S. degree was in and two because my experience is largely in process control software. Call yourself the Grand Exalted Poobah of Software Architecture if you want. The proof is in the value rendered by the work you do.
Software Zen:
delete this;I disgree; it's fraud.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
As others have said, programmers have little control over any part of the software development process: 1. We do not control the specification - it is given to us by the customer or by Marketing 2. We have little control over the design - it is often driven by hardware requirements 3. We have some control over the coding 4. We do not control the QA, testing, or acceptance tests 5. And most important - we control neither the schedule nor the budget Why should we be held responsible for the results of other people's decisions?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
But as a "professional" with a code of conduct, I will do no harm. I extend harm to stupidity; which I will decline to be part of. I don't care who is in charge; I have to live with myself.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
But as a "professional" with a code of conduct, I will do no harm. I extend harm to stupidity; which I will decline to be part of. I don't care who is in charge; I have to live with myself.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
"professional" with a code of conduct,
Plenty of professions have a code of conduct. It doesn't stop unethical, venal, or even just stupid people from working in that field. For licensed professions, it may make it easier to get rid of them, but I wouldn't even count on that.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
The problem with holding the 737 programmers responsible for the crashes is that ultimately, the problem existed because of policies and project decisions by Boeing that had nothing to do with individual programmers. I've worked in the space industry and you usually work together with bunches of teams, each working on their own subsystems which are then integrated at a later date. It is perfectly possible for subsystems to each work as specced, only to result in problematic behavior because of underlying design decisions that had nothing to do with programming. The Ariane 5 disaster is a perfect example of something that happened because a piece of code was reused in a situation where the physical system was different. What worked completely to spec for Ariane 4 caused a self destruct in Ariane 5. that was not a software problem. That was a system design problem.
-
But as a "professional" with a code of conduct, I will do no harm. I extend harm to stupidity; which I will decline to be part of. I don't care who is in charge; I have to live with myself.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
I don't care who is in charge; I have to live with myself.
And I am not afraid of doing it. Flashback: I started a couple of years ago a project at work with "high importance". In the beginning I had a small app that could have been a very, very good start point for the bigger software. I even did a PoC in the most difficult use case. I got moved due to other reasons to a new deptartment and my PoC got discharged... Back to today: New division boss, asked me a time ago about something related and I explained the whole context, he started digging deeper and deeper and the story ended this week with a self report about the situation that we are not compliant with and exonerating me and a couple of people more because the decissions were taken against our advice before he took over (and I have proof of it, just in case). Endly someone at lead doing things right
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
While I agree that companies should hire qualified programmers, I don't believe they should be held accountable. It is the companies responsibility to provide the resources and time necessary to complete the task and when done to test it. Complex programs are almost impossible to be 100% bug free so the question is what is acceptable?
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness". PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
I worked a the Kennedy Space Center in the late 90's on a replacement system to launch the Shuttle (was canceled because the Shuttle was being canceled). Anyway, I remember them finding a bug in the software in place at the time that was decades old. I don't remember the exact nature of it but luckily it didn't affect the actual launching.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
In my professional development life I have seen bugs get past 7 layers of checking, that's 7 different people who should have caught the bug and did not. A professional organisation would not have solved any of those bugs as those 7 layers are exactly the layers and checks that a professional organisation would call for. Organisations are useful to some extent, but they generally just end up being a way to make money for those in the organisations. Sometimes we just have to learn to live with the uncomfortable reality than in life that things go wrong and we try our best to stop the same conditions arising again. Also with specific reference to the Boeing 737 Max disasters that you mention, do you know enough about the root causes to know that membership of an organisation would have prevented them.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
I worked a the Kennedy Space Center in the late 90's on a replacement system to launch the Shuttle (was canceled because the Shuttle was being canceled). Anyway, I remember them finding a bug in the software in place at the time that was decades old. I don't remember the exact nature of it but luckily it didn't affect the actual launching.
C. David Barrineau wrote:
but luckily it didn't affect the actual launching.
That's a good thing.
As the aircraft designer said, "Simplicate and add lightness". PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
In Black's Law Dictionary, a license is defined as permission to do anything that is illegal, a trespass, or a tort (think about that for your personal day-to-day goings-on). In other words, to do this, bureaucrats must make writing software an illegal activity; and remember, only the "law-abiding" will adhere to the illegality of such a thing - you won't see the scumware, spyware, ransomware, or any number of the other XXXX-ware developers seeking licensure or worrying one bit about it. It also encumbers each and every one of us in ways we can only dream of in our worst nightmares; it would certainly put me out of work. Would it also mean that writing software at home, on your home machine(s) would now be an illegal activity as well? Could you "write software" to teach yourself or learn, but just couldn't accept money for it? Who even knows? Could you be raided by the police for illegal activity? Since you can write software on any computer, anywhere, does now the common person have to have special permission from a government agency to have that computer, iPhone, iPad, or other "smart" device, since it could potentially be used for illegal activity? What about the computer in your new fancy 'fridge? What about all the YouTuber's out there that make instructional videos to teach? Are they now performing illegal activities? What about all the posts here on CodeProject? Are they now illegal? Or do we need disclaimers attached to any example code? And let's not forget game programmers. Are they not then responsible for writing obviously addicting software that causes someone to die because of a 100-hour game marathon with only caffeinated beverages to drink? Or the ones that write the various candy-matching games where someone dumps >$1000 per month to play? It must be because the poor gamer(s) must not bear any responsibility in this scenario. What about the business software developer, the back-end database developer, and the (put the description of the type of developer here) developer? Where would it end? Our livelihoods now come under the purview of any and all bureaucrats with no understanding, comprehension, knowledge, or abilities in this area to make decisions that would crush us. Each state would need a Programmer's Board of sorts, similar to a "Medical Board", that would oversee all of our careers. Others could then "turn us in" for dereliction of duties or for any number of other "crimes" for which we would need to appear before the "Board" to justify our decisions. These ac
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
I'm still in a little bit of tryptophan fog, but I'm going to call this as I see it. It's a short version, since I apparently have a 'need' to go buy some reindeer for the front yard :) This is a terrible idea set. Certification. Most certifications are based on one of the following:* Passing a test. While there are certainly people who are very competent that can pass a cert test; there's also a large number of people who can pass a test and are incapable of actually doing anything. Often, professional tests are based on the concept that if one can answer obscure questions, then one certainly must know the basics. False. Coding tests tend to be subjectively reviewed and often deal with non-real-world questions.
- Education. Obviously, education provides some sense of qualification. But, it's worth remembering that for every class, half the class was in the bottom 50%. I'm currently working with a degreed PM and honestly, I get a clearer response running ideas by my dog.
- Experience. It's a decent metric, but between legal issues, company politics, and other things, it can be pretty hit and miss. As far as the benefits and services suggestions? The military offers most of those, so maybe we need a "Programming Force"?
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
gggustafson wrote:
witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters
Pretty sure that was a economic/sales decision. The software that they were charging extra for fixed the problem. It existed when they made the sale. The airline did not buy it.
gggustafson wrote:
Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?
There was a train derailment recently near me. Not the one recently in the news. Closed the highway and killed someone. The problem was with the track. So is the engineer that designed the track responsible? The last person who inspected the track? The engineer that was driving the train? The technical management at the company that oversaw the inspections?
gggustafson wrote:
The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software.
Frank Lloyd Wright. A certified architect. Perhaps the most acclaimed architect in the US. Presumably those working at his firm were certified. The biggest achievement - 'FallingWater' [Edited to correct name] That was a house that it was determined, perhaps in the last 20 years or so, was not possible to build with materials that existed at the time. Which is why it has been propped up with additional support for decades. Lots of 2x4s as I understand it. Until they recently fixed it with something that has only recently been available. The Narrows Bridge Disaster. Presumably built by certified engineers. The Florida Surfside condominium collapse. Killed 98 people. What about the 'certified' people that worked on that? Matter of fact what about the people that were supposed to be surveying it for problems before it fell down? They too were certified.
gggustafson wrote:
but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Move to Texas perhaps? As I understand it you can't call yourself an engineer unless you are certified. So if you really think it is going to make you a better professional then you should move there. Software Engineering[^]
-
gggustafson wrote:
"Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?"
Maybe. Apportioning blame is difficult and is often decided during lawsuits. Managers? Developers? Testers?
gggustafson wrote:
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes
Doctors (at least in the US) carry extremely expensive malpractice insurance for this. Should programmers have to do the same?
gggustafson wrote:
Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional.
If companies don't share the blame, programmers would indeed need malpractice insurance. If not them, then maybe the professional organization, when it certifies someone who messes up. Nothing prevents the creation of such a voluntary organization. The danger is that it leads to licensing, which - restricts trade, - inflates incomes for the licensed professionals, and - enforces groupthink, which stymies innovation and has even led to licenses being cancelled for having unacceptable views.
Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.Greg Utas wrote:
restricts trade,
Absolutely. In New York a 'Cosmetology license' requires 1,000 hours of study and pass two exams. You know so you can cut hair. This is not the only state that does that. To be a 'Master Plumber' one must 'Have good moral character'. There are other requirements.
-
I disgree; it's fraud.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
Perhaps. I just googled the definition of 'engineer' "a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works." So apparently no one that works in software or even computer hardware, not for any reason, should be allowed to use the title of 'engineer'.
