[lug] Developer abuse

[David Morris]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 04:23:16PM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> David Morris wrote:
> This particular change will also require that software "Engineers" be 
> certified and tested on their knowledge of building software.  It cuts 
> both ways.
> 
> That level of certification will force the industry into standards that 
> require code re-use.  Meaning ultimately there will be less programming 
> jobs, but a smaller number of more lucrative "Engineering" jobs.
> 
You have hit it right on the nose...And there are standards
and certifications out there which are trying to fill the
this role, if not on a wide-spread scale.  SEI CMM to name
one.

This reminds me of a discussion I had many years ago with
someone.  If you look at *any* other area of engineering
there are Engineers and Technicians.  The Engineers are what
makes the project possible and make it a success, but it is
the technicians who do the most important part of the work.

Admittedly this model doesn't fit the software engineering
process directly, but it does to some extent.  Technicians
are needed to implement a lot of the details of creating and
running tests, tracking down bugs, implementing specialized
bits of code, and many other tasks. Some technicians
naturally become engineers over time, but others are more
suited to being a technician than to being an engineer.

> "Programmers" resist this change.  Especially new
> programmers, because the schools and training facilities
> are not equipped to handle this change yet.

Hmm, its always been my experience the old programmers are
the hardest to get to change as they've always done it that
way so isn't that good enough?  <shrug>  But then I've had a
rather atypical environment where I learned software
engineering.

--David