←back to thread

Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

(ieeecs-media.computer.org)
180 points beryilma | 5 comments | 21 Oct 24 19:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
kragen ◴[21 Oct 24 19:50 UTC] No.41907822[source]▶
It's so unfortunate that this effort is still alive. The ACM canceled its involvement for excellent reasons which are worth reading: https://web.archive.org/web/20000815071233/http://www.acm.or...

It's probably also worth reading Dijkstra's assessment of the "software engineering" field (roughly coextensive with what the SWEBOK attempts to cover) from EWD1036, 36 years ago.

> Software engineering, of course, presents itself as another worthy cause, but that is eyewash: if you carefully read its literature and analyse what its devotees actually do, you will discover that software engineering has accepted as its charter "How to program if you cannot.".

https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1036.PDF

The ACM's criticisms, however, are much harsher and much more closely focused on the ill-conceived SWEBOK project.

The IEEE's continued involvement calls the IEEE's own credibility and integrity into question—as do its continued opposition to open-access publishing and its recent history of publishing embarrassingly incompetent technical misinformation in IEEE Spectrum (cf., e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41593788, though there are many other examples). What is going on at IEEE?

replies(9): >>41908044 #>>41908088 #>>41908468 #>>41908554 #>>41908654 #>>41908727 #>>41908778 #>>41909589 #>>41911466 #
1. Niksko ◴[21 Oct 24 20:58 UTC] No.41908468[source]▶
Very interesting. Particularly their notion (paraphrasing) that SWEBOK attempts to record generally recognised knowledge in software engineering while excluding knowledge about more specific subdomains of software.

That over-deference towards general knowledge coupled with some sort of tie to a similar Australian effort probably explains why the software engineering degree I began in Australia felt like a total waste of time. I remember SWEBOK being mentioned frequently. I can't say I've gotten terribly much value out of that learning in my career.

replies(1): >>41910261 #
2. kanbankaren ◴[22 Oct 24 01:19 UTC] No.41910261[source]▶
I am guessing that you didn't get value out of it probably because you didn't work in avionics, medicine, defense, etc? Those industries where a software fault is unacceptable and has to work for decades.

In some industries like avionics and medical instruments, the programmer might be personally held responsible for any loss of life/injury if it could be proven.

Having read Software Engineering and Formal Methods 25 years ago, I could say that IEEE leans heavily towards SE like it is a profession.

It is not going to be appealing to the crowd of Enterprise developers who use Python, Javascript, Web development etc.

replies(2): >>41910828 #>>41914350 #
3. Jtsummers ◴[22 Oct 24 03:06 UTC] No.41910828[source]▶
> In some industries like avionics and medical instruments, the programmer might be personally held responsible for any loss of life/injury if it could be proven.

If you aren't a PE, it's hard to hold you personally responsible unless they can show something close to willful, deliberate misbehavior in the development or testing of a system even in avionics. Just being a bad programmer won't be enough to hold you responsible.

replies(1): >>41913538 #
4. 9659 ◴[22 Oct 24 12:23 UTC] No.41913538{3}[source]▶
If your software kills someone (by mistake), personal guilt is a punishment one never completes.
5. kragen ◴[22 Oct 24 13:58 UTC] No.41914350[source]▶
The SWEBOK will not reduce the number or severity of software faults; it probably increases both.