|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: "professional" with a code of conduct,
Plenty of professions have a code of conduct. It doesn't stop unethical, venal, or even just stupid people from working in that field. For licensed professions, it may make it easier to get rid of them, but I wouldn't even count on that.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: For licensed professions, it may make it easier to get rid of them
I seriously doubt that.
"Burzynski Clinic". Operating for 40 years. Sold a bogus cancer cure. Two years after it opened they knew it was a fraud. After that it took them that long to figure out how to remove his medical license.
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry Schmitz wrote: I don't care who is in charge; I have to live with myself.
And I am not afraid of doing it.
Flashback:
I started a couple of years ago a project at work with "high importance". In the beginning I had a small app that could have been a very, very good start point for the bigger software. I even did a PoC in the most difficult use case. I got moved due to other reasons to a new deptartment and my PoC got discharged...
Back to today:
New division boss, asked me a time ago about something related and I explained the whole context, he started digging deeper and deeper and the story ended this week with a self report about the situation that we are not compliant with and exonerating me and a couple of people more because the decissions were taken against our advice before he took over (and I have proof of it, just in case).
Endly someone at lead doing things right
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot agree more! When given a task to supply the code that will ensure 1+1=2, we are not tasked to re-discover the wheel to formulate what makes 1 or 2, our job is to secure the 2, else all fails. If a non-programmer miscalculated the outcome of 2, who is to blame if the design said 1 + 2, but it was misrepresented as 1+1....
|
|
|
|
|
ditto, Dan
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
IMHO, a simpler first step for managements to institutionalise/mandate System Level FMEA, Failure Modes and Effects Analysis, in addition to Software Testing. Such a system level FMEA would at least help to recognise and possibly resolve all failure modes before release.
modified 23-Nov-23 20:14pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Gus, have you watched Uncle Bob Martin's series of videos on what it means to be a professional programmer? He echoes similar sentiments but holds an entire organization accountable. Worth watching. At my shop, we strive to follow his principles.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with holding the 737 programmers responsible for the crashes is that ultimately, the problem existed because of policies and project decisions by Boeing that had nothing to do with individual programmers.
I've worked in the space industry and you usually work together with bunches of teams, each working on their own subsystems which are then integrated at a later date.
It is perfectly possible for subsystems to each work as specced, only to result in problematic behavior because of underlying design decisions that had nothing to do with programming.
The Ariane 5 disaster is a perfect example of something that happened because a piece of code was reused in a situation where the physical system was different. What worked completely to spec for Ariane 4 caused a self destruct in Ariane 5. that was not a software problem. That was a system design problem.
|
|
|
|
|
In my professional development life I have seen bugs get past 7 layers of checking, that's 7 different people who should have caught the bug and did not.
A professional organisation would not have solved any of those bugs as those 7 layers are exactly the layers and checks that a professional organisation would call for.
Organisations are useful to some extent, but they generally just end up being a way to make money for those in the organisations.
Sometimes we just have to learn to live with the uncomfortable reality than in life that things go wrong and we try our best to stop the same conditions arising again.
Also with specific reference to the Boeing 737 Max disasters that you mention, do you know enough about the root causes to know that membership of an organisation would have prevented them.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still in a little bit of tryptophan fog, but I'm going to call this as I see it. It's a short version, since I apparently have a 'need' to go buy some reindeer for the front yard 
This is a terrible idea set.
Certification. Most certifications are based on one of the following:
Passing a test. While there are certainly people who are very competent that can pass a cert test; there's also a large number of people who can pass a test and are incapable of actually doing anything. Often, professional tests are based on the concept that if one can answer obscure questions, then one certainly must know the basics. False. Coding tests tend to be subjectively reviewed and often deal with non-real-world questions.
Education. Obviously, education provides some sense of qualification. But, it's worth remembering that for every class, half the class was in the bottom 50%. I'm currently working with a degreed PM and honestly, I get a clearer response running ideas by my dog.
Experience. It's a decent metric, but between legal issues, company politics, and other things, it can be pretty hit and miss.
As far as the benefits and services suggestions? The military offers most of those, so maybe we need a "Programming Force"?
|
|
|
|
|
MikeCO10 wrote: Education. Obviously, education provides some sense of qualification. But, it's worth remembering that for every class, half the class was in the bottom 50%
Almost every company I have ever worked with at least at one point, and some times multiple times, some one gives a speech about how 'this company' has above average programmers.
Myself I just wonder where are the below average programmers are working then?
|
|
|
|
|
gggustafson wrote: witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters
Pretty sure that was a economic/sales decision. The software that they were charging extra for fixed the problem. It existed when they made the sale. The airline did not buy it.
gggustafson wrote: Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?
There was a train derailment recently near me. Not the one recently in the news.
Closed the highway and killed someone.
The problem was with the track.
So is the engineer that designed the track responsible? The last person who inspected the track? The engineer that was driving the train? The technical management at the company that oversaw the inspections?
gggustafson wrote: The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software.
Frank Lloyd Wright. A certified architect. Perhaps the most acclaimed architect in the US. Presumably those working at his firm were certified.
The biggest achievement - 'FallingWater' [Edited to correct name]
That was a house that it was determined, perhaps in the last 20 years or so, was not possible to build with materials that existed at the time. Which is why it has been propped up with additional support for decades. Lots of 2x4s as I understand it. Until they recently fixed it with something that has only recently been available.
The Narrows Bridge Disaster. Presumably built by certified engineers.
The Florida Surfside condominium collapse. Killed 98 people. What about the 'certified' people that worked on that? Matter of fact what about the people that were supposed to be surveying it for problems before it fell down? They too were certified.
gggustafson wrote: but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Move to Texas perhaps? As I understand it you can't call yourself an engineer unless you are certified.
So if you really think it is going to make you a better professional then you should move there.
Software Engineering[^]
modified 25-Nov-23 12:40pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Your next to last block, responding to "The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software." makes a very good point.
Every engineering disaster has been designed and built by "certified" pros, many who would be considered highly qualified to boot. And several of the major disasters were caused by errors made at the highest level of certification. And, as you point out in your examples, many are subject to continuous review by certified professionals.
And certifying programmers like the IBEW certifies electricians just doesn't get you anywhere. There's good and bad regardless of the paper certs.
Hey, we must be neighbors, though I've become a snowbird as I've come to hate the cold. 
|
|
|
|
|
Fallingwater? 
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a call to start an heated argument. 😁😁
There have been classes and certifications and such for years. But trying to shove everyone into the same sized box will stifle innovation.
There is always a need for accountability, just as there is a need for review and testing.
Good luck!
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events.
- Manly P. Hall
Mark
Just another cog in the wheel
|
|
|
|
|
The point of a professional society is not to place blame on the professional. The purpose is to require that professionals as well as companies follow a body of good practice. If the standard of practice is followed, and a bug still gets through, you can defend a lawsuit by saying, "We followed the standard of practice <and here's="" the="" proof=""> so we cannot be held liable." This is how medicine works (in the USA).
Step 1: spin up a professional society to set standards of practice (so lawyers don't do it for us)
Step 2: make companies liable for buggy software. Right now they are protected.
Step 3: create a certification exam and require that project leadership has passed the exam if companies don't want to be liable. Accountants have the CPA, Lawyers have the Bar exam, mechanical and civil engineers have the Professional Engineer exam, doctors have the Board Certification exam.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, such an association would do exactly nothing. I think it would rather be overall detrimental to the development of software.
Issues like that of the 737 Max was not about accountability of programmers, but but management. From software development management over project management to Boeing's upper management, those were the ones that needed to be held accountable. Boeing was getting lazy, after decades of making money with just two aircraft designs (747, 737) from the early 60s.They simply missed the bus at latest in the early 80s when Airbus started to pass them with a more modern design left and right...
Certification is pointless. What exactly do you want to certify? It's the same with all those sysadmin or networking certifications. A piece of paper on the wall that just doesn't mean anything in the real world.
If anything, such a certification would just artificially increase the salaries locally (I assume you are here in the US of A) and/or force management to use again more offshore programmers in price dumping, low quality locations half a world away.
Retirement fund? That is one of the self-inflicted issues of the last (two) decade(s). It has almost become a more of a competition to land high paying jobs at as many companies as possible. Leaving tons of startups in the wake.
In general, the software industry has become unreliable, with too many fancy new ideas but very little thorough knowledge. And that is something that you can get only with actively working on something that creates a real value, not just by chasing all the latest paradigms to be like all the other kewl boyz on the block....
|
|
|
|
|
The fallacy of this is that such an association will prevent people making mistakes. This is absurd; will we then abolish design review, testing. I don't think so, nor should we - ever - while humans are involved.
Further, like many man made disasters, the 737 Max disasters were a problem of collective business imperatives (management) riding roughshod over individual objections. Your association will do nothing to resolve this and will merely present yet another, and potentially much more effective, way to identify someone at the bottom of the pile to take the fall and divert gaze from the real problem - as you indeed seem to have been.
The whole basis for your assertion is flawed.
modified 25-Nov-23 8:11am.
|
|
|
|
|
As many of the responders to this post seem to have concentrated on fault and blame, let me state that the primary intent of the proposed organization is the preservation of the benefits of its members. For many of us in this profession, we are journeymen - we move from job to job; not necessarily for higher salaries, but rather because the current job is finished and we seek new challenges. I have held many positions over the 60 years of my career. Unfortunately, at each move, I lose the benefits that I acquired during my tenure in the job I am leaving. I have lost vacation days, sick days, and retirement benefits. Although the challenges of the new job were worth the loss of benefits, during a career the loss is appreciable. The proposed organization would compensate for that loss.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
I would say Yes and No
compareing to other industries for an assoication, I am unsure how the retirement fund, and work protections fit in.
In best, it would make sense for civil or human saftey projects, such as public used planes and transport where can say,
- we have done 3 layers of testing
- have backup systems
- documentation coverage.
- critical failures are capable of falling back to safety
- Simulation model that has run for X years
- security plans put into place
Things like bridges have strict regulations and requirements. However at the benfit of decades of material science. New OS security risk skyrocket but given 6 months of tests and rolled out to millions. Programming languages which are not old.
The pace expectations are very high, so reason for it fall apart quick. With that though there are some things that can be signed off. Such as no external access either USB port or network, until that one person must have remote access and leaves it open.
the responsibility of the authority body could be identical to Construction Product Certification - British Board of Agrément
Quote: We are quality drivers, champions of safety and help our clients create accountability and mitigate risk.
Through extensive research, auditing, inspection, testing and certification, we help to instil confidence in the products, services and systems created, designed and implemented throughout the entire British construction supply chain.
As for 90% of the work done, protecting Software Engineering title from other Programmer titles like Canada does, it seems overkill.
|
|
|
|
|
60 years ago today, William Hartnell grumped out of the TARDIS as a rather tetchy Doctor. Shaky sets, dodgy aliens and a villain based on a pepper pot with a sink plunger stuck to it. It was always going to be a hit.
|
|
|
|
|
Tetchy: my new word for the day. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who ?
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
