[leafboi]

I disagree. It's blurry and not so clear cut but certain ranks need to be earned otherwise it's fraud.

For example what if I called myself a Navy Seal and combat veteran even though I'm not? That would be dishonorable and insulting to people who actually risked their lives.

[reaperducer]

It's blurry and not so clear cut but certain ranks need to be earned otherwise it's fraud.

Like all the "engineers" on HN who are really just programmers. There's a word that's been bastardized over the last three decades.

It used to be a common joke: A garbage man is a "sanitation engineer." A housewife is a "domestic engineer." A farmer is an "agricultural engineer." Then for some reason, the SV bubble latched on to "software engineer," without understanding that it was supposed to be a joke. Maybe they felt bad because they had to work with electrical engineers.

I ran into a guy in a bar once who introduced himself as a "software engineer." I asked what engineering board licensed him to use that title. He said none, but that he's an "engineer" because he designs complex systems.

Structural engineer = engineer. Electrical engineer = engineer. Architectural engineer = engineer. Guy who pushes buttons = programmer.

California state law defines engineer: "consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning or design of public or private utilities, structures, machines, processes, circuits, buildings, equipment or projects, and supervision of construction"

[Rooster61]

Programming and Software Engineering are two different things, and I'll challenge anyone that says otherwise.

Why? Because the ability to program is a subset of what a software engineer needs to be able to do. Granted, it's an IMPORTANT subset, but to create, or "engineer" good software on any truly useful scale, one needs other very, very important skills.

Engineering is based on the idea that you are using some degree of scientifically sound principle to create something in practice. That applies to creating software. There are clear, scientifically rigorous axioms, corollaries, etc that dictate ways that software can be written effectively, from the basic instructions a computer can process all the way up to the highest levels of abstraction. Software standards are developed that define ways that software should be written to take advantage of this scientific resource, and a huge part of writing effective and useful software is managing how one spends their time creating, refactoring, testing, and deploying/publishing that software. That is NOT an easy problem, and it is distinct from programming in and of itself.

The idea that a "board" has to exist to say whether or not something is an engineering practice doesn't hold water because it's the science underpinning the practice that makes it engineering.

[leafboi]

>Then for some reason, the SV bubble latched on to "software engineer," without understanding that it was supposed to be a joke.

It started as a joke? I had no idea. Is there a definitive source or initial point where it all started? Link or story perhaps?

[reaperducer]

Is there a definitive source or initial point where it all started? Link or story perhaps?

It's pre-web. No links. You had to be there.

[true_religion]

Software engineers used to be able to get licensed. I think in Virginia the last time it was applicable was 2011.

[throwaway38235]

...also a bit insulting to all the innocent victims in some poor countries.

[LegitShady]

It would be a federal misdemeanor, not just "dishonest" which is why the analogy sucks. Going to compare yourself to a veteran to make a point about developers is pretty low.

[Rooster61]

> It would be a federal misdemeanor

Not quite. Stolen valor can only be charged when it's provable that the person in question benefited in some way, usually financially, from the lie.

Don't get me wrong, it's a dickish and incredibly disrespectful thing to do, but it isn't illegal in and of itself.

Edit: IANAL, but I've read a good bit about this particular subject.

[leafboi]

Don't call me low that's rude. I find it low whenever a commenter on HN decides to be call someone low simply because they disagree. You're using words to twist my statement as if I'm insulting veterans. I clearly am not, don't try to manipulate others' into thinking that's what I'm doing.

I'm saying that you can't call yourself whatever you want in all cases. I use an extreme example to illustrate that it's not so clear cut. Giving yourself titles doesn't only apply to developers and it's not so clear cut why we can only be so laissez faire in software but not in other certain fields.

[LegitShady]

I didn't fall it low because I disagreed I called it lo because you jumped to a low analogy.

And you using a legally protected status to talk about developers is not relevant and a poor analogy but ok. You using veterans is low.

[leafboi]

It's not low at all. It is also 100% relevant. It's called misusing titles which is the topic at hand. In some cases it's ok in some cases it's not ok. I have not insulted veterans in any way.

You're just trying to start a witch hunt. Not so far from pointing at me and shouting "racist" for no reason. Doing that is not just low it's vile.

[LegitShady]

You could have used doctors, or some other title. You chose to 1) Use one that has legislation protecting it so as to make your analogy worthless and 2) use veterans specifically as if you deserve to have a title protected like people putting their life on the line.

And then when confronted on it, you're now accusing me of "Starting a witch hunt" when in fact I just called out your actions directly. I never called you racist - you're bringing up nonsense to pretend you're virtuous when you're not.

And I'm ok with being called vile by someone with obviously incredibly poor judgement.

[leafboi]

> You chose to 1) Use one that has legislation protecting it so as to make your analogy worthless and 2) use veterans specifically as if you deserve to have a title protected like people putting their life on the line.

First off you're a liar. The legislation only extends to people who used it for profit so you can legally call yourself a veteran. You lied to my face or you don't know what you're talking about. Pick one.

Second when does using veterans as an example make me low? It doesn't I just used it as an example to show how it's WRONG. get it? Probably not, people like you are incapable of knowing the difference.

You're twisting it. I never said you called me racist but what you're doing is similar. You're calling out something as insensitive when it is in no way insensitive. I could have use doctor but I chose not to because veterans were the first thing that came to my mind as wrong to impersonate. They have a term for people like you who go around starting wars for infractions that aren't even infractions: Social Justice Warriors. Get off your high horse.

>And I'm ok with being called vile by someone with obviously incredibly poor judgement.

It is vile. You're accusing me of something evil and wrong. People who don't take the time to read into what's truly going on end up burning the witch in a witch hunt. Your words are deceptive and have the possibility of stringing along a mob in this manner.