Programmers calling themselves software engineers suddenly is a very recent phenomenon (barely a decade). Dunno who pushed that, but it's mostly basically (cognitively difficult) Lego at this point.
That said, it's also on the order of a hundred years younger a discipline and our theory is not so well developed.
Try longer than my career (approaching 30 years in the business), often pushed by the business and kicked into high gear with the rapid need for development resources with the combination of Y2K mitigation and the first dot-com boom.
Yes, there are a lot of "developers". But there are also software engineers, even if our engineering craft is less-well developed by the standards of civil engineering or mechanical engineering. I understand engineering organizations (like those in Canada) who oppose the use of the term "software engineer" because there's no common code of practice or standards in the same way that those who wear the iron ring claim is incorrect.
I think that we, as a profession, need a code of ethics (and the ACM has a good one, https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/) and the application of software in certain cases should absolutely be regulated the same way that the various physical engineering practices are (healthcare, AI, finance, legal applications) so that there are consequences for the businesses and potentially the software engineers involved with those businesses when they cause harm (see sentencing guideline software in the US; see the contract that developed the Royal Mail "audit" software that could never work as advertised; see the rampant fraud that is crypto; see the abuse of generative models to software-wash copyright violations).
But the lack of regulatory bodies does not mean that there's not a practice of engineering involved, it just means that there's no regulatory body that governs said practice.
> Yes, there are a lot of "developers". But there are also software engineers, even if our engineering craft is less-well developed by the standards of civil engineering or mechanical engineering. I understand engineering organizations (like those in Canada) who oppose the use of the term "software engineer" because there's no common code of practice or standards in the same way that those who wear the iron ring claim is incorrect
Just to clarify, there's no issue in Canada with "software engineer" specifically. "Engineer" is the protected term, and you have to be licensed to use it. So the issue applies to calling yourself any kind of engineer without being licensed.
If you are a licensed professional engineer in the software field, you can refer to yourself as a software engineer. This is just uncommon because there are not a lot of programs that grant BEng in software, the licensing is rarely relevant, and most people take CS anyway.
> "Engineer" is the protected term, and you have to be licensed to use it.
The IEEE documented that a little different:
It is the IEEE-USA position that:
• Individuals who have graduated with an engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering education should not be prohibited from using the title “Engineer.”
• The protected titles “Professional Engineer,” “Licensed Engineer,” “Registered
Engineer,” and variations thereof, should be reserved for those whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public health, safety and welfare -- and who have been licensed to practice engineering by a jurisdiction.
That seems to me to be a much more sensible position than that of the provincial licensing bodies here in Canada, who attempt to regulate all uses of the term "engineer", even though many uses are orthogonal to the regulated profession.
The objection is IMO as linguistically specious as the one aimed by MDs against PhDs. Both are entitled to the honorific Doctor, and context is as important as anything else.
Ah yes. Meanwhile, my friend who's a mech-e at a car company starts from scratch on every single last project, never reusing components, and also machines every component from scratch because there's no such thing as McMaster or any other vendor. When he works on a project, the physical parts never ever fit together like Lego. It's not like he'd use calipers or something to do what's called measuring (twice!) so that things fit together.
There are plenty of places to demand more rigor from people writing software before considering it engineering, but reuse of parts, and having them fit together nicely is a weird one.
In the 90s it sounded pretentious and people used to joke about it. In the early days of Google they tried to label themselves as engineers to set themselves above the rest of silicon valley. It was a way to try to signal that their work was somehow more technical
That said, it's also on the order of a hundred years younger a discipline and our theory is not so well developed.