|
|
|
|
|
|
by TeMPOraL
3786 days ago
|
|
|
The few companies I worked in and with, and all the code I've seen, points to the latter case - most of us are delivering utter disasters, thanks to the mix of technical errors, management errors, shifting priorities, internal politics and time constraints. |
|
|
But whatever the reason or rational, every time a story breaks about another security exploit or privacy exploit I read that as a condemnation on our profession.
In other professions, part of the certification process is gaining a basic level of understanding of the ethics one is judged against when associating one's work with that of the larger trades group, guild, or association. Often it is well understood that, to some extent, the topic is simply being paid lip service. But,it is also understood that those ethics draw a bright line which those the association serves will not tolerate when openly crossed. Take for instance investment professionals. Everyone knows insider trading happens and it's not uncommon to put profit before fiduciary duty, but when those lines are openly or egregiously crossed it is not tolerated under threat that the understanding between the client and advisor that minor infractions will be tolerated will no longer be honored.
The software engineering profession lacks this basic ethical covenant with its customer. Just look at the utter lack of product warranties. Sure there are SLAs, but there are virtually no warranties. And it shows.
As software begins to function more and more as the linchpin of our society, this issue will morph from technical debt to an Achilles heel. We complain about anachronistic laws. What about anachronistic code? We complain about absurd laws. What about absurd code? It's just as dangerous.