[j05huaNathaniel]

Your comment seems pretty elitist. It's clearly implying that Software Engineers aren't real engineers. I'll admit, not every software developer designs and builds engines (see definition of engine) but many Software Engineers, in fact, do. The principles of engineering are simply applied sciences. Many software engineers have degrees in Computer Science and they are applying the science. I also know plenty of Software Engineers that have Engineering degrees as well. So I guess I'm just wondering why exactly you feel the need to "normally" correct OP? Real question, not trolling. I just want to to understand.

[reificator]

> Your comment seems pretty elitist. It's clearly implying that Software Engineers aren't real engineers.

The guidelines say that we should respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

The following quote could easily be interpreted as viewing software engineering as a subcategory of engineering:

> most of the items on this list seem broadly applicable to different types of engineers

Given that interpretation, it seems more like they expected an article like this to be about software-specific concepts.

[gitgud]

This isn't as inflammatory as you think it is, software engineering is just a subset of engineering... just like all other engineering fields.

OP is just happy that this can be applied more generally.

In my opinion, engineer is just a term for people who solve practical problems. Which is a huge community of people these days.

[imafish]

I think you misunderstood him, as others have noted, however I do agree that Software Engineers tend to diminish their own skillset as not "engineery" enough. And I have a very hard time understanding why.

I work with many kinds of engineers, every day, from electrical to mechanical, and I do not find their way of working any more advanced than what I have become used to from disciplines of Software Engineering.

I look at some of their math and think magic. They look at my code and think magic. However, anything else seems pretty much the same. We do iterative development, they do iterative development, although less sophisticated and with much longer feedback loops, so they have higher incentives to get designs right the first time - but that does not mean that they always do!

[sk0g]

I didn't understand it that way, they expected the list to be software engineering specific (touching topics like Git, CI/CD, etc), but the title gave off the impression that it would be helpful for engineers across all disciplines.

And it was, thus they were pleasantly surprised.

[tmh88j]

Not sure that I agree. I think said comment is more of an observation that software engineers have a larger representation here than other engineering disciplines, but this list isn't exclusively beneficial to software engineering principles.

[ben_jones]

But you can't deny there is a pervasive overuse of the label 'engineer' to cover everything from junior web developers with < 1 year experience all the way to senior roles at major companies. The label has an important meaning to non-technical readers and should be used more sparingly.

[imafish]

So a mechanical engineer with < 1 year experience should also be called a junior mechanical developer.. or am I missing the point here?

[richardwhiuk]

A mechanical engineer with < 1 year of experience likely has a degree in Engineering, which has been certified by a professional body. In some countries that's a requirement for using the term "Engineer".

A junior web developer, with less than 1 years experience might have spent two days reading https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sams-Teach-Yourself-PHP-Hours/dp/06... (if that).

Let's not pretend those are the same.

Software Engineering has a history of trashing any benefits of formal education, and refusing to believe that any of it has any worth.

[imafish]

> In some countries that's a requirement for using the term "Engineer".

This is more or less the case where I am from, so I assumed that to be generally applicable, but no? In that case, I agree.