[deregulateMed]

If you ever want to reconsider the topic of SWE not being Engineers, here's an example.

It's typically not feasible to "wing it".

Cost, time, and Effort make it so you need to be correct the first time. mistakes do happen, but when I switched from Design Engineering to SWE, I'm allowed significantly more mistakes. These can be inefficiencies, incorrect outcomes, bugs/errors, etc... No big deal because I can recompile. Can't do that with a half million dollar in steel molds with production on a set date.

Additionally with engineering, I'll have 4 layers of management review and sign off. With programming it's subjective code reviews.

[hnfong]

Inexpensive/inconsequential mistakes simply enable bigger mistakes to be made. Systems grow more complicated as long as they're allowed to.

You can recompile a syntax error, but even in software, you can't back track on things like choice of language / tech stack / architectural design decisions without wasting millions of dollars.

For traditional industries, there's (presumably) some best practice or de-facto standard for many things, since most things have already been invented in the past.

For software, you have contradicting best practices with people arguing convincingly both ways. Everybody has their favorite tech stack and some end up being fads. New technologies come out every couple years, and if your project is successful enough and runs long enough, you either get stuck with old tech or spend millions of dollars figuring out an upgrade path. Sometimes the "upgrade" is actually another fad, but sometimes the upgrade is crucial to your future business.

Not sure whether these things fall under "engineering" but I don't think it's inherently less "hard" than what traditional engineers do. Sure your junior dev is not going to do this, but people who make these decisions are often called software engineers ("senior", "lead", whatever).

[bigyikes]

This seems like gatekeeping. You’re describing the awesome power of software: it can be updated and infinitely replicated and is therefore more tolerant of mistakes. Just because the field has this boon doesn’t mean that those working in it aren’t “real engineers” or whatever.

Suppose technology was sufficiently advanced to make steel mold production nearly free and instant. Are the mold designers no longer engineers then? (Watch out for 3D printing, by the way...)

[mewpmewp2]

This is an interesting topic. "Engineer" is a word that people respect. "Developer" is a meh word. You'd rather want to be Software Engineer as opposed to Software Developer even though some companies call you former and the other latter despite your responsibilities and everything being exactly the same.

Common people would respect classical engineers more because they can see that they are building something tangible. And it seems many definitions for engineers everywhere seem to exclude "software", something like "a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures.".

Fun story is, when I was doing medical checkup for my work the old lady saw I was marked as "software engineer", and she didn't like it and asked me for an alternative.

[orange8]

I believe this confusion arises between the valid definition of the act of "engineering" with another equally valid definition of the profession of engineering, which like most professions, require some sort of formal degree.

[deregulateMed]

Yep at that point you can have technicians designing molds.

Stick your engineers on projects that require correct answers.

[mewpmewp2]

You could also be winging it when you are inventing something or building something experimental and given the thing is not large enough to last several years. E.g. when inventing a light bulb for the first time you would be iterating on it and "winging it".

[deregulateMed]

I think this is more similar to science than engineering.