No. I am paid to be involved in the software industry, but as an engineer, not as a coder. Writing software is not part of what I do. That is, to use your bridge analogy, for the construction crew.
> over the course of repeated "agile" "sprints".
It is true that not all engineers know what they are doing, are good at what they do, or bold enough to push back against out-to-lunch stakeholders.
> so someone gets angry, throws it away, and starts again growing a new monster.
I never understood that. Untangling the messes was always the fun part back when coding was still a job. But I don't really see any coders in industry anymore. Any last remaining ones I knew of have already been replaced by LLMs. LLMs will also happily untangle the messes, though, so still no reason to abandon code.
Boeing ships software that crashes planes, Microsoft Windows regresses so you can't move the start menu, medical devices come with hardcoded admin credentials.
>> One quirk of the program was that the amount field came pre-populated with 15 zeros, which the person inputting a transaction needed to delete, something that did not happen.
> One quirk? Fifteen zeros? The quirk in the software is that if you type “send $1” it says “okay sending one quadrillion dollars” and you have to backspace over all the zeros? Incredible interface design.
> I'm very very curious where all these mythical software engineers are working.
Boeing, Microsoft, and medical device manufacturers mentioned seem like pretty good candidates. Were you under the impression that the software designed at those places just magically appears?
As before, being an engineer does not imply being good at the job. It only implies designing things. The designation of Professional Engineer institutes a vetting process to try and weed out those who aren't good at the job, which may be the source of your confusion, but PE is a designation, not a job. Not all PEs even work as engineers, although certainly many do.
Ok so why is all their software such garbage, then? You can't gaslight me, I work in this industry. I see the absolute nonsense that passes for marketable product. I know there are smart people involved in creating software, but they are not engineers and (with the possible exception of some groups at NASA[0]) nothing they produce is the result of an engineering process.
Has any software "engineer" ever lost his license because he signed off on trash code that failed? Where is the Otis elevator emergency brake[0] of the software world?
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
No. I am paid to be involved in the software industry, but as an engineer, not as a coder. Writing software is not part of what I do. That is, to use your bridge analogy, for the construction crew.
> over the course of repeated "agile" "sprints".
It is true that not all engineers know what they are doing, are good at what they do, or bold enough to push back against out-to-lunch stakeholders.
> so someone gets angry, throws it away, and starts again growing a new monster.
I never understood that. Untangling the messes was always the fun part back when coding was still a job. But I don't really see any coders in industry anymore. Any last remaining ones I knew of have already been replaced by LLMs. LLMs will also happily untangle the messes, though, so still no reason to abandon code.