I have a bachelor of software engineering and could pursue PEng if I wanted (which I won't). Right after graduating it annoyed me that everyone in software called themselves engineers, but I got over it.
Engineering is defined by the various international agencies and schools that accredit engineers, not Wikipedia. "Software Engineering" is a real engineering discipline in Canada and other places. The premise "An engineer's model must be tightly bound to the laws of physics and chemistry" just seems to be a construct of the author.
Engineering is about the practical application of rules, balancing factors like cost, maintainability and scope. Chemical, mechanical and software engineers do similar jobs, working with different sets of rules.
This is why I'm so opposed to using the term "software engineering" to describe software development. I do agree that "engineer" is a term that shouldn't be used loosely - it is a prestigious term that indicates a high level of education and rigor. But there's a deeper reason - I absolutely reject any claim "engineering" (the PE kind) has over my work. If I use the term "engineer", I give more credibility to that claim.
An exam based in physical sciences would be a great way for people with an educational background in physical sciences to stake a claim on software, calling themselves "engineers" while everyone else is a mere developer or programmer, putting themselves at the top of the field.
I majored in Math and have an MS in Industrial Engineering. I think that it would make as much sense to make everyone prove that they've passed courses in Abstract Algebra and Real Analysis, and take a difficult exam involving proofs about optimization and convexity to be a "software engineer." And this time, I would get to be on the top of the totem pole instead of people who have a more physics and chemistry based education! I hope it's clear I'm being facetious here - I just want people who do advocate PE style licensing to get a sense of what it's like when people from a different field start telling you what you need to know and do to practice your craft.
I do understand that there are software elements to engineering systems, and it might make sense to have some sort of licensing around it. However, I have yet to see a professional association refrain from severe "scope creep", using their cartel-like power to establish arbitrary and unnecessary barriers to entry to restrict entry and jack up prices.
Software is kind of like engineering, but I agree with the author that it has more in common with mathematics. Seriously, it would make more sense to require a degree in math and an exam in path than a PE exam. And it would not make sense to require this kind of math.
My take on it is this - I am not an engineer, what I do is not engineering, and the PE folks have absolutely no legitimate claim on what I'm doing.
Engineering is defined by the various international agencies and schools that accredit engineers, not Wikipedia. "Software Engineering" is a real engineering discipline in Canada and other places. The premise "An engineer's model must be tightly bound to the laws of physics and chemistry" just seems to be a construct of the author.
Engineering is about the practical application of rules, balancing factors like cost, maintainability and scope. Chemical, mechanical and software engineers do similar jobs, working with different sets of rules.