Should the definition of a 'software engineer' be different to a standard, i.e. non-IT 'engineer'?

Good question The word "engineer" has a special legal meaning in most jurisdictions. It does not only mean what you said but also implies a infrastructure for acknowledging and licensing competent engineers (ones who fulfill criteria of education and pass formal examination, for instance) The need for a similar infrastructure for software engineering is disputed. I guess that when you say standardize you mean creating such a thing The pros usually given are the standardization of the profession, in terms of requirements, licensing, etc.The cons are unnecessary burden put on professionals to maintain such a infrastructure (licensing boards, professional associations, etc) and the inability to guarantee that a licensed professional´s work will be of quality The irony, I think, are that these pros and cons are the same for every each other engineering discipline, and there was not much discussion when the first engineering boards were formed.

My theory is that those were created with a guild-like quality that was proper of the time, and nowadays guilds in that sense, are out of fashion As to the dangers of the current title soup, it certainly is not a pleasant situation, but I see no other way to settle it for all, other than software engineering being treated as a regular engineering discipline. If such a thing does happen tough software engineering would have to be in a class of its own, because the scientific principles it applies is computer science, rather than physics and chemistry, as other engineering disciplines.

Good question. The word "engineer" has a special legal meaning in most jurisdictions. It does not only mean what you said but also implies a infrastructure for acknowledging and licensing competent engineers (ones who fulfill criteria of education and pass formal examination, for instance).

The need for a similar infrastructure for software engineering is disputed. I guess that when you say standardize you mean creating such a thing. The pros usually given are the standardization of the profession, in terms of requirements, licensing, etc.The cons are unnecessary burden put on professionals to maintain such a infrastructure (licensing boards, professional associations, etc) and the inability to guarantee that a licensed professional´s work will be of quality.

The irony, I think, are that these pros and cons are the same for every each other engineering discipline, and there was not much discussion when the first engineering boards were formed. My theory is that those were created with a guild-like quality that was proper of the time, and nowadays guilds in that sense, are out of fashion.As to the dangers of the current title soup, it certainly is not a pleasant situation, but I see no other way to settle it for all, other than software engineering being treated as a regular engineering discipline. If such a thing does happen tough software engineering would have to be in a class of its own, because the scientific principles it applies is computer science, rather than physics and chemistry, as other engineering disciplines.

I think so. Software Engineering is still emerging as discipline in the context of true engineering. Many people, including some of the top software engineers think that we are still more in a craft phase of evolution rather than a matured engineering phase.

Prospects for an Engineering Discipline of Software by Mary Shaw. An Engineer IMHO builds things that have a high degree of certainty based of scientific/mathematical principles. Your standard coder working on business apps does not do this.

I guess a good analogy would be programmers/developers are alchemists whereas engineers are chemists.

Should the IT industry rationalize and standardize all of the job titles no, that would be silly. The job title "web developer" did not exist fifteen years ago. I imagine that in another ten years it will be as meaningless as the 'standard' job title "Programmer III" is today."standardizing" things that are evolving is counter-productive.

Embrace the chaos, flow with the change, give the world time to self-rearrangeTM.

– Steven A. Lowe Nov 23 '08 at 19:11 What I'm pointing at is that engineers should be able to pick up technologies/tools (such as web development) much quicker than non-engineers can pick up fundamentals. – Andrew from NZSG Nov 24 '08 at 0:16 @Andrew from NZSG: and musicians can pick up instruments faster than non-musicians.

I still don't get your point - the question was about standardizing job titles – Steven A. Lowe Nov 24 '08 at 16:51 "The job title "web developer" did not exist fifteen years ago" But the unofficial title of a 'software technician' or 'CRUD monkey' or 'Joe Quick-n-dirty' existed for a long time and will exit for a long time. The current job soup is due to dependencies on tools/technologies, rather than ability.

– Andrew from NZSG Nov 26 '08 at 4:02.

I'd like to see that get through Congress without being radically reshapened. Some of software engineering is still in its infancy if you think about how long bridges or buildings have been built compared to various older computer systems that didn't have the power that today's machines seem to carry in abundance.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.