Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7509 comp.object:3234
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!philbo
From: philbo@dhw68k.cts.com (Phil Lindsay)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object
Subject: Re: Software "Engineers"
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.031516.501@dhw68k.cts.com>
Date: 18 Apr 91 03:15:16 GMT
References: <3844@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Wolfskill & Dowling residence; Anaheim, CA (USA)
Lines: 20

In article <3844@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.uucp (David M Geary) writes:
>  How does one test a software "engineer" for competency?  In engineering, one
>takes classic problems, changes the important variable values, and asks
>an engineer to solve them.  In software development, there are far fewer 
>classic problems, and, worse yet, none of the problems has one accepted
>mathematical method for solving them.  Testing for competency among
>software developers is a much more difficult task than testing for 
>competency among (real) engineers.

The only test I can think of is the GRE, but thats mostly math... And
all the issues of good software development are hardly touched (if at all).
Concepts and methodologies are not mature enough to warrant mass
appeal.  We have many years to go before "engineering" can truly come
close to computer science. 
Right now (from what I have seen) SOFTWARE ENGINEER = EGO.
-- 
Phil Lindsay - "Patents threaten future technology"
Internet: philbo@dhw68k.cts.com  Phone: Wrk7143852311 Hm7142891201
UUCP:     {spsd,zardox,felix}!dhw68k!philbo
USMAIL: 152A S. Cross Creek Rd, Orange, Ca. 92669