Submitted 1 year ago by fogetaboutit@programming.dev to programming@programming.dev
In your opinion what’s the difference between the two? In my opinion both terms are frequently used interchangeably in the workplace.
But I’d like to consider myself as an engineer, because although I’m don’t consider myself as good at it, I think I cared about the software that I worked on, its interaction with other services, the big picture, and different kinds of small optimizations.
I mean, what is even engineering?
Poorly defined nomenclature. Simple as that. I’m an “automation engineer”, have had many other titles, but anytime I write what I do, like LinkedIn or such, I write “programmer”, because it is simple, descriptive, and I like it. I’m old, but I used to like ”hacker” until it came to imply nefarious programming.
Poorly defined nomenclature. Simple as that. I’m an “automation engineer”, have had many other titles (…)
Anyone can call themselves what they feel like it. However, in some jurisdictions and contexts the title “engineer” does have a specific meaning, consisting of someone who not only has the necessary and sufficient training but also is a member of a specific professional body. These credentials have meaning and those who try to pass off themselves as one without having the certification or credentials might be breaking laws.
100%, but my understanding is that most often applies to fields of engineering outside of computer science like mechanical, chemical, structural engineering etc. But there are licensing bodies for achieving Professional Engineer of FE in some cases for CS.
I am not a lawyer but I presume most laws apply to claims of such certifications rather than job titles. In either case most people don’t pick their own job titles. Just don’t put PE, after your name, same as you should not just randomly throw BSN or MD unless you have a registered licensure.
It’s a huge faff, you will get a different answer from every person you ask. They’re used interchangeably, and it just doesn’t matter.
To entertain your prompt. Real world engineers (structural, etc.) aren’t entrusted the title because they “care” about what they build, it’s because they have to be correct, and as such, they follow extremely rigid process and take the time to never be wrong.
That’s not how software works most of the time, and it’s even heavily discouraged in a lot of the industry. We learn from failure, and the consequences of software failing are nil compared to the consequences of a bridge failing.
Again, I don’t really care though what the industry wants to call it, developer or engineer. It doesn’t matter and it’s all made up anyway.
I quite like the term Software Alchemist.
To me, the words “engineer” and “developer” both imply that a well thought out and structured plan is in place for them to do their job. Not so with “alchemist”, which implies a fair amount of experimentation and uncertainty, both of which are very common in the software industry.
It’s always been one of my favorite ways of describing the job :)
In a lot of places, engineering is a regulated field, meaning you need a certificate to call yourself an engineer. e.g. this lawsuit.
Guess im not an engineer in canada
but what if you are
A dev work on some code. It works, great, job done.
An engineer comes to see this work. It hasn’t been thoroughly tested, it only works on the dev computer in his coding environment. There is no documentation. There is no comments in the code. Half the features are missing because the story didn’t talk about them. Installing the “software” is made by hand and only one person knows how to do that. Some libraries are used with various licences, some are outdated, some can’t be maintained, some will download stuff on their own. Performances are shit. I certainly forget a lot of stuff.
Now the engineer will work to solve all these non code problems.
Now the problem is that software companies don’t care about engineers because they have managers. Managers will consider engineers like developers and ask them to work like developers. They will also tell the engineer that his lunacies are too time consuming, which means too expensive, so they will go in the backlog and be forgotten.
Yes I’m disillusioned and depressed about working in software development. It’s not like this everywhere. Some companies have an engineering culture. Especially when they come from older industries, like electronics or car etc. But I haven’t had the chance to work in one for 5 years now.
Holy shit can confirm. Am also fighting off some burnout or depression or both?
Get called out for being slow, yet their “fast” development time seems to be related to the projects we have to keep revisiting as they keep failing publicly 🤔
Like yea it needs to be delivered, but do we really want to be so careless with employee and customer trust? Also, wouldn’t there be value in keeping things structured well enough to be consistent with our delivery times?
I get that it can be polished later but later never seems to come. The tech debt just keeps stacking and I find myself being the only one scraping up the turds.
I feel like I’m being gaslighted sometimes…
I’ve seen this time and time again and it breaks my heart. In a Tron way, I wish all users could ingest this and then make reforms to the Industry. Profit at all costs makes users poor.
As a former civil engineer who now works in software, “software engineer” irks me. “Engineer” means you’re supposed to be licensed and you have a responsibility for the public good above your responsibility to your employer.
This is seriously what’s missing from the software field. There is no rigor or responsibility
As a former civil engineer who now works in software, “software engineer” irks me. “Engineer” means you’re supposed to be licensed
This really depends on the country you live in. In some countries you need a license, some need you to have some kind of university degree and others don’t care at all. So we cannot really use that measure as a definition.
This really depends on the country you live in.
Not really. There are two aspects to this problem: one is how people assign arbitrary and meaningless titles to themselves, and another is regulatory requirements by jurisdictions to be able to legally assume a role.
I can call myself senior dubstep engineer, and that’s perfectly fine. I can’t call myself a civil engineer and sign off on a construction project or a permit. No one cares if I’m actually a senior dubstep engineer or if I’m junior at best. In the meantime, you will get in trouble if you try to sign off on a construction project, no matter of how stubborn you are with regards to calling yourself an engineer.
Hah, my dad (electrical engineer) had the same complaint when I studied sound engineering 😂
Do engineers take some sort of hippocratic oath?
Robert “Uncle Bob” Martin, author of several foundational texts, and coauthor of the agile manifesto provides one, which I think is good: blog.cleancoder.com/…/TheProgrammersOath.html
Of course we don’t, otherwise social media/tobacco/petroleum industries wouldn’t exist.
“Engineer” means you’re supposed to be licensed and you have a responsibility for the public good above your responsibility to your employer.
Good point. We definitely don’t, and it’s what’s causing huge amounts of trouble in the world, rather than using software for the greater good.
But engineer sounds better by some definitions, and it strokes the ego of employees, so companies like to use it to give more prestige to the role.
As a former civil engineer who now works in software, “software engineer” irks me. “Engineer” means you’re supposed to be licensed and you have a responsibility for the public good above your responsibility to your employer.
This. I think some people don’t understand that titles are not whimsical status symbols and hold actual legal and regulatory meaning. A random guy can hold an engineering degree and not be an engineer, while a random guy with no degree can actually be a engineer if he jumps through all the hoops.
In engineering fields, being a member of a professional engineering body is critical to work in the field, because the main value proposition of these credentials is to prevent incompetent people to work on critical tasks which can potentially have important consequences to society if they are done poorly. For example, people can die if an engineer signs off on a project for a residential building that collapses due to shoddy work. If that happens then the engineers who signed off on the project will be investigated and if they are held responsible not only can they be held criminally responsible for their work but their license will be pulled, which is society’s response to ensure this problem won’t happen again.
And the criteria for which bodies are considered professional can often come down to government or capitalism, both of which are very flawed. It should come as no surprise that software developers, who tend to be anarchists(see: the existence of FOSS), are distrustful of statist and capitalist regulatory bodies.
Just to be clear, that is not exclusive to “engineering,” as other professionals have similar legal requirements (doctors, lawyers, fiduciaries).
More generally, on a personal level, people are expected to act with integrity, and we have laws that provide them legal protections for whistleblowing.
The actual practice of engineering is about problem-solving within a set of constraints. Of course the solution should not harm the public, and there are plenty of circumstances where software is developed to that standard.
When a PE stamps a plan, they are asserting that they personally have reviewed the plan and process that created it and that it meets a standard for acceptable risk (not no risk!). That establishes the boundary of legal liability. In software, we generally do not have that process that fits in a legal framework, but that doesn’t mean that professional software engineers aren’t making those assessments for life-critical systems.
For other kinds of systems, understand that this is a new field and that it doesn’t have the bloody history that got “real engineering” to where it is today. A lot of the work product of most software engineers just don’t have stringent safety requirements, or we don’t understand the risks of certain product categories yet (and before you try to rebut that, remember that “building codes are written in blood” because people were applying technology before it was well-designed/understood).
Anyway, “engineering” is defined by a lot more than if you or your boss has a stamp.
In my company everyone is called Software Development Engineer 🤷♂️
Well, if I remember my software engineering prof correctly, software engineering is mostly about bringing an engineering mindset to software development. You wouldn’t just slapdash an airplane together in a weekend and shove it out on the runway. There’s a process for making sure we don’t kill people with deadly flying contraptions.
Software engineering is that same idea applied to software systems. There is a process for making sure we do our job without causing undo harm. You wouldn’t want to just slapdash together something that has to be HIPAA compliant and has to meet other security regulations. You plan. You test. You revise. You ensure the product doesn’t publish the sensitive medical records of every patient on the front page before it ends up in production. That is the work of a software engineer.
That is the work of a software engineer.
To build upon this, we need to keep in mind that at least in some jurisdictions the role of a certified engineer is only required in projects with relevant size, and the responsibility of that engineer is to ensure the project complies with all requirements and therefore be held responsible for any mishap. This means that it’s perfectly fine if non-engineers work independently on complex tasks, provided that an engineer attests that their output is fine and takes responsibility in case it isn’t and it causes problems.
I really like this answer, because now I’m confident that I’m at least acting as an engineer. Thanks!
I think it’s just a “branding” difference. I was at a company once that changed everyone’s titles from developer to engineer. It was mostly done cause engineer was more hip.
I think developer was more used a decade ago. I would not be surprised if it cycles back at some point. It’s just like clothes fashion or whatever.
This whole thread was weird to read as a Canadian:
In Canada the title “engineer” is a legally protected term. You can’t legally call yourself a software engineer without going through the Engineers Canada accreditation.
You are a software engineer if you are an engineer in good standing. Calling yourself a software engineer without accreditation is fraud.
I’m not sure where you’re quoting from, but as far as I can see, only “Professional Engineer”, “Licensed Engineer”, and “Registered Engineer” are protected in the US.
I fixed my comment above. Thanks for the correction.
Canadian Engineering Associations will actually get you for illegally labeling yourself an Engineer. I did a software developer program and after graduating a few people decided to start calling themselves engineers. The organization contacted each person individually and I belive the program coordinator. It is a serious title here, it is the same as a healthcare worker calling themselves an RN without being registered with the nursing college.
If someone flies the “software engineer” banner seriously, I expect them to have some theoretic knowledge besides the practical one. They would know different programming paradigms (procedural, OOP, FP), know about programming patterns, layers, UML, and at least a programming language or 4 (3 superficial, 1 in-depth).
A software developer can be any random code-monkey picked up from the street that is self-taught and/or had a boot camp of sorts. Nothing wrong with being self-taught or boot camps, as SDs need to eat, but it lacks a certain level or rigor I would expect from a SE.
If both had a certain amount of experience the SD would mostly catch up to the SE, in practice. Not sure if on theoretic knowledge too, but that depends.
I have been a network engineer with no degree for many years, but I did have a lot of certs. It’d be nice if there were something similar for programming. But I’ve never seen anyone care that much about the engineer title. I’ve always thought it’s someone who understands his craft/engine design in and out, but doesn’t design it himself. The architect designs it. The tech can perform documented solutions
I have an M.Sc. in software Engineering and it is nut just a “software developer” but an actual masters degree from an engineering university. I think Americans starred abusing the software Engineer title a decade or two ago and hence many think it is just a title anyone can use as they like.
At least 25 years ago.
And did you really compare a software dev with a BSc against your MSc (not a MEng?) and compare those apples and orange as if they were peers?
Im not sure about America now, but in my country the title “P.Eng” (professional engineer) is restricted by law to those who have gained a degree as an engineer specifically, B.Eng or bigger, and have written a subsequent certification exam.
Not sure what you mean about your apples and pears comparison thing. Around here we have two levels of engineering - diploma engineer and civil engineer and that’s also the title you get.
Due to some countries not understanding this differentiation, we use the more common B.Sc for Diploma and M.Sc. for civil. You can then specialize in different areas like software, electronics, AI, health tech, and many more. So basically we have all the engineering courses + the special courses on top.
This is probably the most well-researched piece of writing on the matter: www.hillelwayne.com/…/are-we-really-engineers/
NGL I think that’s a pretty crappy article. Very little of it is research, it’s just assertions and arguing his POV philosophically. He also gets basic things wrong, and says “civil engineers work on buildings.”
The research is the interviews he did with engineers. That sentence is obviously a simplification, especially since he immediately follows it with one about talking to a civil engineer who builds mines.
I am in my first job that’s a full-on “software engineer” title, which is a move I wanted to make. However, leading up to it I have a 20 year engineering career covering various aspects of electronics as well as software.
What I work on is C/C++ that runs the company’s main industrial product, and not some more mainstream web or app development. So it’s software work as part of a multidisciplinary team to design or improve a physical product.
So for those reasons I only think of myself as an “engineer.” But I can totally see how other jobs using similar skills would be more “software dev” or even “I’m in IT.”
I typically tell people that engineering is applying physics. If you aren’t directly interacting with the physical world, you are most likely a developer.
Working on an app, no matter how complex (or unessarily convoluted) generally makes you a developer. If you aren’t thinking about impact of clock cycles, actuation/hardware interfaces or sensing, there is a high chance that the work you do has little to no risk or a chance of failure that is governed by the physical world. As said in other comments, engineers design and sign off on things. There is an implication that there is an unknown constraint, unlike a fully observable software environment.
I think this is a terribly naive view of the impact the physical world has on software development. Most web development is actively concerned with throughput which is governed by bandwidth limitations and API construction. The user experience concerns that go into, say, the design of medical interfaces is no different from the design considerations of physical switches in a cockpit. Alert fatigue is just as much a consideration for monitoring in software as it is for industrial controls.
I also disagree that engineering is applying physics for user experience concerns I brought up. If your industrial controller makes it impossible to understand what’s going on when shit hits the fan (eg Three Mile Island), I would argue you as an engineer have failed. That’s not applying physics unless we’re stretching “applied physics” to cover the movement of subatomic particles through brains as psychology.
I appreciate your opinion. I know that the qualification I made is a controversial one as everyone wants to be an ‘engineer’, but I’m still confident it holds. Applying physics is not purely at the atomic level. In web development, one of the physical challenges can be bandwidth, however, while most people claim to concerned about bandwidth, in reality they don’t do anything about it. Minifying code is cool, but that’s not doing any engineering by itself. Calculating the throughput your datacenter can dish out for your 1million users as you write a function that optimizes load vs lag of streaming video, that’s engineering.
Thinking about user interaction and experience is more psychological than it is physical in most cases. Designing the user experience of a medical device or cockpit switch are both not automatically qualified for engineering: unless, you are designing the medical device to overcome spasm that someone with Parkinson’s has, or, the cockpit switch is made of a blended plastic mix to reduce the weight requirement on a plane but hold up from wear. I’m not saying one is worse, but we need to make the distinction between designers, scientists and engineers.
I understand that everyone wants to be an engineer, whether for pride or just to feel more important (hell I want the engineer title too). Unfortunately, the tech industry (with arguably one of the most conflated egos) liberally tossed around software engineering to every role to attract talent and I don’t see that changing. It’s a profession, so whatever you are being paid to do, will determine if you are an engineer.
By that definition almost all people who call themselves software engineers would be wrong. That doesn’t automatically mean, you’re wrong though.
Personally, I disagree with your definition of software engineers needing to directly interact with hardware stuff in order to be engineers. Wikipedia defines software engineering as
the application of systematic desciplined, quantifiable approach to development, operation and maintenance of software and the study of these approaches; that is, the application of engineering and computer science to software.
So it’s all about the systematic approach to complex systems, not about whether or not you directly interact with hardware interfaces.
IMO an engineer should be able to develop a complex system which an entire company could potentially be based upon.
A developer who isn’t an engineer would focus more on individual libraries, apps or tools that don’t necessarily require the mindset of an engineer to design and maintain.
They told us in boot camp the difference is about $10k.
FWIW, at UCLA, computer engineering was a different degree than just computer science, and had a more rigorous courses including electrical engineering and ethics courses. Many people dropped out and switched to the CS degree instead.
Finally: professional engineers who engage in title snobbery are often accused of “ring knocking”, as if they were physically knocking their iron ring against a desk to point out the size of the dick on top of their shoulders.
Maybe, postulating, as I consider myself an Engineer and not a Developer.
Tangentially related: comeriohomes.com/the-difference-between-a-develop…
Brainstorm thoughts dated just now
I guess it’s in the conveyance of the word? Engineer seems like fitting a puzzle piece. Creating Software in a vast eco-system of language, OS, Frameworks, Platforms, Networks, and views it’s progression in time. For instance planned obsolescence, graecful failure in the “pipeline of things”, tolerates network topology changes, etc.
Maybe Engineers build with well designed, graphed/drawn, and planned strategy of the components in interaction with all other systems, including OS failings, local Network failing, Internet failing, Management Failings (workplace), on and on. The more things you can account for the more brilliant an Engineer you are.
Software Developer seems more linear. You take an idea and start with a good program. Then it’s built up and up until it becomes a great piece of Software.
I don’t wanna add anything here. You are correct on the idea you already have. Keep going 👍
I’ve been calling myself a programmer. That’s mostly what I do anyways
a dev can build a thing, an engineer can build a distributed modular thing with more complexity around non programming parts like infrastructure. Take the thing and design a machine of parts and each can be maintained, observed, and optimized as needed. For example we can use topics for backpressure and consumer lag for auto scaling pods, but then you have to consider the distributed processing for duplication, out of order, throughput… there is no exact line in the sand between dev and engineer but that’s how I think of it.
MajorHavoc@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Consodering the almost complete lack of standards, certification, licensing in most areas of programming, I don’t think there’s a ton of difference. I’ve held both titles without rhyme or reason between the two.
One way I try to live up to the title “Engineer” - even when I don’t wear it - is by holding myself to the Engineering Code of Ethics.
thesmokingman@programming.dev 1 year ago
One of the issues is that devs don’t know about the normal engineering certifying body (at least in the US). One of the problems with that body was its expectation that a software engineer also know other forms of engineering. For example, a chemical engineer needs to know some civil and industrial engineering to get their certification. It’s almost nonsensical to ask someone building cloud apps to understand the principles of chemical engineering unless their work is in chemical engineering.
I know a ton of engineers that don’t view software as a field that can use the term because of its lack of certification.
elias_griffin@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Superb for including the Engineering Code of Ethics which I didn’t know exsisted! In my decades of working on every part of Computer Systems, Information Systems, unfortunately, I personally think if you work for Big Tech, you cannot abide those Code of Ethics. From the website>
Fundamental Canons
Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:
How many Google Code Monkeys violate 1 or more of those on the daily? For instance in Canon 1, it does not say profit is paramount, but that public welfare is paramount. In fact, you could argue that is a competing objective working for Big Tech and following ethics.