[asoneth]

In my opinion, what has been most harmful for evolution of the software engineering profession is the tendency to blame individual developers for not being infallible instead of fixing chronic failures in tooling, processes, and funding.

The medical profession, aviation, even rail transportation [1] have all progressed past the point where avoidable failures are entirely the responsibility of the individual.

Of course, there was resistance in those fields as well because some considered themselves an "above-average" doctor or pilot who didn't need safeguards, checklists, union rules, or laws. But it empirically improved outcomes.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3AdN7U24iU

[andrewflnr]

While I agree in this case: at the edges, there still exist people who just should not be allowed to be doctors or engineers. The main difference with software is that the stakes tend to be drastically lower...

[asoneth]

The stakes could be drastically lower or drastically higher depending on what the software is used for.

For example, we might want to make sure software used in avionics, aerospace, weapons systems, voting machines, medical devices, cryptography, power plants, policing, finance, etc is carefully engineered. But I agree with your main point that there's still a baseline of competence necessary -- we need both good tooling and good people.

That reminds me of a lament from a friend at the Software Engineering Institute that the profession missed the boat on the kind of licensure most engineering disciplines have. (That is, any software developer can refer to themselves as an "engineer" without taking any tests, accepting any liability, or meeting any other legal requirements.)