[gretch]

Yeah it makes no sense. Like, you build an airplane and clearly the airplane needs both it's software and it's hardware in order to fly.

Somehow the people who made the hardware are engineers, but the people who made the software aren't engineers.

[s1artibartfast]

Nobody reasonable is saying that software isn't important, technical, or valuable. It isnt a dig.

It just has to do with the subject matter and definition of Engineer. The clearest delineation is that an Engineers work is the application the laws of physics. Software developers are more akin to Scientists than Engineers. They work in the arrangement of logic and the semantic relation of abstractions.

That is to say, Engineers work within a framework of rules, and Computer scientists construct frameworks of rules.

[gretch]

The definitions you just came up with are completely arbitrary. Worst yet, your definitions aren't even shared.

It's hard to pin down exact agreed upon definitions in English, but I searched many popular dictionaries and none of them have "Engineers work is the application the laws of physics".

Fair enough if you want to have personal definitions of words, but don't try to gaslight the rest of us into thinking your understanding is the canonical one.

Here's my facetious definition to illustrate how dumb the discussion - I think an engineer is a person who works with ENGINES (duh it's in the name). Obviously people who build bridges aren't engineers; do bridges have engines?

[toast0]

Some bridges do have engines, many more have motive force. Of course, a lot of them just stand there, not doing much at all.

But, someone who isn't wearing a blue and white stripey hat can't possibly be an engineer.

[s1artibartfast]

I brought up a definition shared by many people, and did so without hostility. Do you have a real definition that you can bring to the table? Is there a reason why you are taking things personally?

Can you articulate the difference between an engineer and a scientist?

[gretch]

No you didn't have hostility, but you had a boat load of pretentiousness, and unfortunately that's often indistinguishable.

> I brought up a definition shared by many people

What you did is discount the definition used much more widely and commonly. You didn't just bring up a new possible definition, you declared another one invalid by saying "Because software development isnt an engineering task".

If you want social counter-proof you can go to LinkedIn and type "Software Engineer" to see how many people consider Software Engineering to be a form of engineering.

> Do you have a real definition that you can bring to the table?

Yes, the definition that I think has the most use to society and is most precise while still being inclusive is "Engineers are people who solve real world problems in resource constrained environments". In fact I think the best engineers work across mediums, including software. For example, someone who engineers a robot has to do mechanical and software.

> Is there a reason why you are taking things personally?

I'm not, not sure what leads you to conclude this.

> Can you articulate the difference between an engineer and a scientist?

No I can't. Does that matter?