Margaret Hamilton actually coined the term "software engineer" IIRC. Rest in peace

catskull 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

She did! A few years ago I actually tracked down the source of that, which was an interview done for an obscure textbook and republished it on my blog if you are interested in learning more: https://catskull.net/interview-with-margaret-h-hamilton.html

	▲	autoexec 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		out of curiosity, how'd you get your hands on the textbook?
	▲	srcreigh 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is incredible, thanks a lot for making it available for us.

▲

penskymaterial 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Little did she know, the term would be co-opted by guys changing the color of a button on a web site.

▲

doginasuit 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And gate-kept by just as many. I wonder what she'd take more issue with. My understanding is she wanted to elevate people who work on software, not draw a line around it.

▲

Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent [-]

If I had the option I would prefer the term "engineer" be gatekept.

Terminology can help elevate something that's often overlooked, but if every programmer gets called a "software engineer" there's no way to distinguish the special stuff.

	▲	altmanaltman an hour ago \| parent [-]
		So are you okay with actual engineers having a problem with the term used in software since you support gatekeeping? Engineer is a term that was used far before software was a thing. So if you support gatekeeping, you should let engineering refer to "actual work" not "code" and find a new term that doesn't engulfs the "original meaning". Or just accept terms change as society and technology does.

▲

onion2k 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And then other guys made frontend dev tooling so complicated that it does actually require a software engineer to change the color of a button.

▲

worldsavior an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wouldn't say coining "software engineer" requires special skills or personality uniqueness. It's just who is more famous and the right time.

	▲	0xR1CK an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's not too soon to delete this, dude. The tone of this statement is cynical, reductive, and dismissive. I bet you're fun at parties.

▲

pvab3 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

IMO software is not engineering because it has nothing to with the physical sciences

▲

akamaka 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It becomes engineering when the software is flying to the moon and back.

▲

phinnaeus 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Grace Hopper would like to show you her collection of nanoseconds.

	▲	Dylan16807 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Up at the software level, the relevance of that distance is only the barest hint of physics behind a frosted glass window. This does not successfully counter what GP was saying.

▲

monocasa 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Quite a few practical constraints on software are imposed by the physical world and our current ability to construct devices out of it. Working within those constraints to provide value that people can depend on isn't the worst definition of engineering I've heard.

▲

autoexec 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I just wish that software engineers had a similar level of accountability that an engineer building something like a bridge is held to. When a negligent software engineer causes harm to people nothing typically happens. No real risk of lawsuits, or loss of license, or worry about their liability insurance. This also means that software engineers can't effectively push back when their bosses want them to implement things that they know are insecure or dangerous

▲

saimiam 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, Meta just settled with states to the tune of 17 billion dollars for harm caused by its algorithms.

Air Canada, a few years back, was found liable when its ai bot promised discounted fares to a customer.

Companies are getting hacked and held to ransom regularly so bad software is getting punished alright.

Maybe the guy writing the actual line of code (or the guy in whose name AI code is being pushed to git) isn’t getting punished but software is definitely being scrutinised for ill effects.

	▲	autoexec 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Meta just settled with states to the tune of 17 billion dollars for harm caused by its algorithms. Those were working as intended, unlike a bridge that collapses because of bad design. > Air Canada, a few years back, was found liable when its ai bot promised discounted fares to a customer. That was a solid win for AI accountability, but it only cost them $812.02. They most likely made money using that lying AI bot. It wouldn't take a week of paying just one employee minimum wage to hit $812. Last I heard they're still using the chatbot. It's true that bad code can cost a company something, but its obviously not costly enough that they take the needed actions to avoid shipping it.

▲

lazyasciiart 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I hope you don’t write your own crypto.