> ... nobody in the field of "Software Engineering" is actually an Engineer if we go by a strict definitions.

This is a pet peeve of mine, so while I understand what you mean, I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering!

And since I've had this discussion before, I'll pre-emptively hazard a guess that the argument boils down to "rigor", and point out that a) economic feasibility is a key part of engineering, b) the level of rigor applied to any project is a function of economics, and c) the economics of software projects is a very wide range.

Put another way, statistically most devs work on projects where the blast radius of failure is some minor inconvenience to like, 5 users. We really don't need rigor there, so I can see where you're coming from. But on the other extreme like aviation software, an appropriately extreme level of rigor is applied.

▲

Jcampuzano2 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I don't really disagree with you. I was just pointing out how the parent mentioned how "engineering" is changing when it already has changed many many times.

Of course I want the best of the best who are top notch and rigorously trained working on mission critical software.

▲

coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>I will challenge you to come up with a strict definition that excludes software engineering!

"Structured, mature, legally enforced, physically grounded standards based approach to the construction of repeatable, reliable, verifiable, artifacts under stable (to the degree that matters) external constraints".

Some niche software development (e.g. NASA/JPL coding projects with special rules, practices, MISRA etc) can look like that.

99.9% of the time though, software "engineering" is an ad hoc, mix and match, semi-random, always changing requirements and environments, half-art half-guess, process, by unlicensed practicioners, that is only regulated at some minor aspects of its operation (like GDPR, or accessibility requirements), if that.

▲

arealaccount 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yea we do standups every day and plan story points twice a month???

▲

fc417fc802 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

By that definition the vast majority of historic engineers weren't "real" engineers. It's correct to claim that software engineering isn't currently an accredited profession and it's also quite reasonable to question the extent to which the vast majority of software development qualifies as the practice of engineering. But the latter is highly subjective and will likely also rule out a significant fraction of the grunt work that accredited engineers perform.

Which is to say, engineer the job title is distinct from engineering the activity is distinct from engineer the accreditation.

	▲	coldtea 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>By that definition the vast majority of historic engineers weren't "real" engineers. And they weren't. They were craftsmen and tradesmen, e.g. stonemasons.

▲

skywhopper 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Accredited”

▲

24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

2OEH8eoCRo0 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a pet peeve because the truth hurts. We (most of us) aren't doing anything that resembles engineering.