[batiudrami]

The core thing that I think differentiates software engineering and programming is accountability for the quality and ethics of what you design. If an engineer designs and signs off on something, they are legally accountable for if it. There is mandatory ethics training at university and people refuse to sign off on work they don’t understand or aren’t confident in. Engineering assurance and management of change processes are the opposite of “move fast and break things”.

As far as I can see there is no ethical accountability for the programmers at big tech companies. People are happy to pocket the crazy salaries and claim their managers or execs should be blamed for the damaging outcomes of their work.

[jcparkyn]

As someone who has done "ethics training" as part of an engineering degree, I don't believe for a second that it has a significant impact on the choices most engineers would make in their jobs.

Sure it helps to have established bodies to hold engineers accountable and report violations to, but I certainly don't think the ethics training is a significant factor. There's no shortage of degreed engineers signing off on things far more ethically questionable than most of what big tech is doing.

This also sounds pretty optimistic as a generalisation: > people refuse to sign off on work they don't understand or aren't confident in

[dr_dshiv]

Ok, so you’d say that there are no core engineering principles that could distinguish an engineering approach from a mere development approach.

Instead you’d claim that the key distinction is that engineering requires a legal/moral duty to accountability.

Is that a general consensus here?

[batiudrami]

Engineering assurance is an engineering principle.

[biztos]

So the hordes of Electrical Engineers slaving away at Apple and Intel and all the rest — these people, and not their bosses, have legal accountability for every harebrained thing they are required to implement?

[michaelt]

The idea is drawn from things like structural engineers signing off bridges - where there's probably only one on a project, and if they won't sign off the design, neither will any other structural engineer.

I doubt it'll ever get adopted in the software industry, because we have many competent people doing good work without a software engineering degree, and degrees of low enough quality employers do whiteboard coding tests at interview, so there's not really a notion of a 'properly qualified' programmer.

[batiudrami]

Yes. If they designed something they knew was unsafe, or they were negligent in their design, or they misrepresented their competency I would expect them to be accountable for their actions as a professional electrical engineer.