[Dewie]

So many programmers have this weird inferiority complex when it comes to the term "engineer". Not you, but those who think that most programming can never be called "engineering" because people don't die if you introduce a software bug[1] (as if the only kinds of modern "engineers" have to do with immediately safety-critical things). I prefer the plain "programmer" myself, but I don't see the big deal unless "engineer" is a protected title wherever that person lives.

[1] Note that I said "most programming".

[agentultra]

I'm a little sheepish about using it around the engineers in my life because I know I'm not legally liable and held accountable to the same standards they are when I make a mistake in the software I ship.

I like to think I take a certain amount of rigor in the choices of tools and processes and design philosophy that reduces the amount and impact of bugs... but if we get a customer complaint about our product we don't generally issue a recall and lose millions of dollars.

It's not that I spend any less time learning theory and application and it's certainly no less challenging in some cases than even mechanical engineering but... it's a liability thing.

Also, I don't write software for aerospace control systems.

I've seen companies advertise "software engineer," positions whose primary responsibilities included running a fleet of Wordpress blogs.

Just a matter of perspective I guess.

[Dewie]

Like I said: inferiority complex.

[nirvdrum]

For me it's not a matter of severity of consequences, but rather in all other professional fields to be called an engineer you need to pass a PE exam. Having not taken that exam, it just feels like taking a cheap shortcut because it's not widely regulated.