This only opinion piece on the issue worth reading, because it's the only one that bothered to seek the opinions of the people that would know best: those people that have been software engineers _and_ some other kind of engineer.
I think I'm missing something, but why is an opinion piece needed on this issue? Software engineering is a licensed engineering profession in many places. It used to be possible to be licensed as a software engineering in the United States [1, 2](little demand caused the licensing exams to be discontinued, possibly because regulation wasn't enforced, according to [2]). So, I think it's fair to say enough of the engineering profession has spoken to say software is a branch of engineering.
What I think are the relevant extracts from the article:
> “Do you consider software engineering actually engineering?”
> Of the 17 crossovers I talked to, 15 said yes.
> That said, many of the crossovers [3] also added an additional qualification: software engineering is real engineering, but a lot of people who write software aren’t doing software engineering. This is not a problem with them, rather a problem with our field: we don’t have a rich enough vocabulary to talk about what these developers do.
The engineering field has developed a vocabulary for different professionals in the field. Why can't this be applied to the software field since it is a form of engineering? There are engineers, technologists, technicians, and trades (at least where I am). The issue is there are education and work experience requirements that lead to licensing, which people will say are inequitable and gatekeeping [4]. From 2, there was an experience-only path available to get software engineering licensure, so if the field really wants it, there seems to be precedent to allow for alternative routes into those titles.
[3] The definition of "crossovers:" "people who used to be professional engineers and then became professional software developers. I call these people crossovers, hybrids between the two worlds."
[4] I'm sympathetic to these concerns. I studied engineering technology and worked as a technologist at the beginning of my career. I wanted to become a mechanical engineer, but I couldn't afford to return to school full time to complete the remaining 2 years for the BEng. (My school offered a 2 year diploma for engineering technologists, which led directly to years 3 and 4 year of the BEng.) When I wanted to complete the degree, a full time course load was required (7 courses per term at my school) for the engineering program to maintain accreditation.
What I think are the relevant extracts from the article:
> “Do you consider software engineering actually engineering?”
> Of the 17 crossovers I talked to, 15 said yes.
> That said, many of the crossovers [3] also added an additional qualification: software engineering is real engineering, but a lot of people who write software aren’t doing software engineering. This is not a problem with them, rather a problem with our field: we don’t have a rich enough vocabulary to talk about what these developers do.
The engineering field has developed a vocabulary for different professionals in the field. Why can't this be applied to the software field since it is a form of engineering? There are engineers, technologists, technicians, and trades (at least where I am). The issue is there are education and work experience requirements that lead to licensing, which people will say are inequitable and gatekeeping [4]. From 2, there was an experience-only path available to get software engineering licensure, so if the field really wants it, there seems to be precedent to allow for alternative routes into those titles.
[1] https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/software/
[2] https://www.nspe.org/resources/pe-magazine/may-2018/ncees-en...
[3] The definition of "crossovers:" "people who used to be professional engineers and then became professional software developers. I call these people crossovers, hybrids between the two worlds."
[4] I'm sympathetic to these concerns. I studied engineering technology and worked as a technologist at the beginning of my career. I wanted to become a mechanical engineer, but I couldn't afford to return to school full time to complete the remaining 2 years for the BEng. (My school offered a 2 year diploma for engineering technologists, which led directly to years 3 and 4 year of the BEng.) When I wanted to complete the degree, a full time course load was required (7 courses per term at my school) for the engineering program to maintain accreditation.