[_qulr]

I think "Why is software different?" is the wrong question. Why is software the same? Most professions don't need professional licensing, and it's not clear that the economy would be served well by adding licensing requirements.

[TwistedWeasel]

if you look at it economically, maybe. It's a complex problem. The economy doesn't benefit from contractor licensing either, but the consistency reliability and quality of our infrastructure does.

[_qulr]

The reliability of licensed contractors is... questionable. ;-) In some cases it seems pretty silly. For example, beauticians need to be licensed, even though they make very low average salaries, so it's not particularly helpful to them, and it doesn't stop some of them from giving bad haircuts.

The mention of contractors brings up an important point though. Many people support software developer licensing because they believe (mistakenly IMO) that it would make hiring easier, but not all software development is done by employees. In a licensed profession, you cannot legally practice the trade, not even as an entrepreneur, unless you have a license. Are we to apply this same standard to software development? Nobody can write software without a license from the state? Is that even possible? What about the people writing consumer software alone at home? Can nobody even publish a web site with HTML and JavaScript without a license? A web site is essentially all you need to create a billion dollar business, so either licensing prevents that from happening, or licensing won't really be a uniform standard for the software industry.

Mark Zuckerberg was a college dropout. Thus, he wouldn't have a license. No Facebook. Maybe you're ok with that, if you hate Facebook, but nobody really thinks the problem with Facebook is that Zuck was an incompetent programmer. In any case, software development licensing would put up a major barrier to entrepreneurship in the tech industry.