Call for a Professional Programmers' Association
-
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'.
-
In the (theoretical*) case of a software glitch causing a disaster, why is it the programmer's fault? Why not the system analyst who specified what the code should do? Why not the tester who signed off the tests, or maybe the test designer? Why is it not the client's responsibility to independently verify what the programmer did, before putting the code into the "real world"? What if the programmer coded the software correctly, but a compiler bug (they do exist!) meant the outcome was not what the programmer wrote? And as Mike Hankey implies, what if the client / manager / project leader didn't allow sufficient time for design, coding and testing? I seriously doubt that any developer of safety critical apps would be willing to take on the "responsibility" for their systems on the basis of being a member of a professional organisation. At the very least, if there is a risk of a developer being held personally responsible, then they need to take out professional indemnity insurance. Such insurance *might* be cheaper if the individual is a member of a recognised body, but that's only likely if the organisation does its own verification of the developer's abilities and competence. Having done so, and affirmed that the developer never makes mistakes, they too would carry part of the liability. In short the whole thing is too vague, too complex, and too open to litigation. In the UK there is an organisation for professional freelancers / consultants, the (clumsily-named) Association of Independent Professionals and the Self Employed IPSE[^] IPSE provides guidance, legal advice, insurance, best practice, peer support and more for self-employed freelancers BUT does not in anyway vouch for the "professionalism" or abilities of its members. When it first launched as the PCG (Professional Contractors Group) in 1999 it was almost entirely composed of IT professionals, but now encompasses all trades and professions. * In the example you use, of the 737-Max, it's very questionable whether the programmers carry any of the blame. In an intrinsically unstable airframe, the software was designed to adjust flight control surfaces to counteract that instability; and was designed to do so without the capacity for the pilot to override those software inputs. The programmer's code was not at fault; it received an input, did some calculations, and generated an output. In the tragic case of the 737-Max, the inputs were
DerekT-P wrote:
why is it the programmer's fault?
Yep a complexity issue. Which is why 'real' engineering problems, you know the ones where buildings fall down, often are only resolved via civil lawsuits against companies. Oddly enough same is almost always true for doctors as well. Even when they kill someone. Only time it becomes criminal is when they can show gross negligence.
-
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
-
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.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
For licensed professions, it may make it easier to get rid of them
I seriously doubt that. "Burzynski Clinic". Operating for 40 years. Sold a bogus cancer cure. Two years after it opened they knew it was a fraud. After that it took them that long to figure out how to remove his medical license.
-
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"?
MikeCO10 wrote:
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%
Almost every company I have ever worked with at least at one point, and some times multiple times, some one gives a speech about how 'this company' has above average programmers. Myself I just wonder where are the below average programmers are working then?
-
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[^]
Your next to last block, responding to "The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software." makes a very good point. Every engineering disaster has been designed and built by "certified" pros, many who would be considered highly qualified to boot. And several of the major disasters were caused by errors made at the highest level of certification. And, as you point out in your examples, many are subject to continuous review by certified professionals. And certifying programmers like the IBEW certifies electricians just doesn't get you anywhere. There's good and bad regardless of the paper certs. Hey, we must be neighbors, though I've become a snowbird as I've come to hate the cold. :laugh:
-
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.
"Hey, you'll finish the pacemaker BIOS next week or else, buddy." Can we start an organization like this who prevents any other organization from forming? Their only function to ensure that no accreditation or licensing is ever a thing. It's for the good of humanity, really. I think it might cause a mass exodus/brain drain that wouldn't really be recoverable. Too much demand and too few who know what's going on. We'll essentially have made sure we make things worse by enshrining a sort of 'standards' body right at the time we alienate and ouster a bunch of people who had the knowledge and experience to know that can't be done correctly for this. Little that comes out of it will not actually be detrimental, much less beneficial. Force companies to fully staff accredited QA depts. It doesn't matter if we take responsibility. Everyone is going to always always make mistakes. Ideally a QA dept can function as both "tester" and as "enforcer" when it comes to things we say software shouldn't do, like killing people. The standards body we need right now is not in code quality enforcement, code, or process standards. The one we need is probably more like a medical ethics board. But that's just impossible. Still, I think our worse problem is not bugs and craftsmanship but more "just because you can, doesn't mean you should (or even be allowed to)".
-
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[^]
Fallingwater? :)
Gus Gustafson
-
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
Sounds like a call to start an heated argument. 😁😁 There have been classes and certifications and such for years. But trying to shove everyone into the same sized box will stifle innovation. There is always a need for accountability, just as there is a need for review and testing. Good luck!
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
-
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.
I cannot agree more! When given a task to supply the code that will ensure 1+1=2, we are not tasked to re-discover the wheel to formulate what makes 1 or 2, our job is to secure the 2, else all fails. If a non-programmer miscalculated the outcome of 2, who is to blame if the design said 1 + 2, but it was misrepresented as 1+1....
-
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 point of a professional society is not to place blame on the professional. The purpose is to require that professionals as well as companies follow a body of good practice. If the standard of practice is followed, and a bug still gets through, you can defend a lawsuit by saying, "We followed the standard of practice so we cannot be held liable." This is how medicine works (in the USA). Step 1: spin up a professional society to set standards of practice (so lawyers don't do it for us) Step 2: make companies liable for buggy software. Right now they are protected. Step 3: create a certification exam and require that project leadership has passed the exam if companies don't want to be liable. Accountants have the CPA, Lawyers have the Bar exam, mechanical and civil engineers have the Professional Engineer exam, doctors have the Board Certification exam.
-
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
Sorry, such an association would do exactly nothing. I think it would rather be overall detrimental to the development of software. Issues like that of the 737 Max was not about accountability of programmers, but but management. From software development management over project management to Boeing's upper management, those were the ones that needed to be held accountable. Boeing was getting lazy, after decades of making money with just two aircraft designs (747, 737) from the early 60s.They simply missed the bus at latest in the early 80s when Airbus started to pass them with a more modern design left and right... Certification is pointless. What exactly do you want to certify? It's the same with all those sysadmin or networking certifications. A piece of paper on the wall that just doesn't mean anything in the real world. If anything, such a certification would just artificially increase the salaries locally (I assume you are here in the US of A) and/or force management to use again more offshore programmers in price dumping, low quality locations half a world away. Retirement fund? That is one of the self-inflicted issues of the last (two) decade(s). It has almost become a more of a competition to land high paying jobs at as many companies as possible. Leaving tons of startups in the wake. In general, the software industry has become unreliable, with too many fancy new ideas but very little thorough knowledge. And that is something that you can get only with actively working on something that creates a real value, not just by chasing all the latest paradigms to be like all the other kewl boyz on the block....
-
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.
