Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!td2cad!jreece
From: jreece@td2cad.intel.com (John Reece )
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Software Engineer Licensing (Was Re: A Cynic's Guide, part 1)
Message-ID: <760@td2cad.intel.com>
Date: 15 Mar 88 17:57:02 GMT
References: <5321@utah-cs.UUCP> <1692@desint.UUCP> <5335@utah-cs.UUCP> <1694@desint.UUCP>
Reply-To: jreece@td2cad.UUCP (John Reece )
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel TD, Santa Clara CA
Lines: 23


Frankly, I don't see anything inherently wrong with there being a PE
license available for software engineers - the closest thing now is the one for
electrical engineers.  It would be another bullet on my resume and another
shingle to hang on my wall.

However, let's not kid ourselves about individual professional engineering
registration being a panacea for the problems of the software industry.
Licensing hasn't kept other engineering disciplines from designing
Pintos and space shuttles that explode, skyscrapers with windows that
pop out in a good wind, airliners that have engines fall off on takeoff,
passenger liners without adequate lifeboats, etc.. The difference
between these snafus and the software industry's is that companies in
other industries must warrant and accept liability for the performance
of their products, whereas it has been amply pointed out that software
companies disclaim *any* responsibility for their products.

The problem with the software industry is not individual competency, it's that 
the law tolerates corporate incompetency.

John Reece
System Manager
Intel