←back to thread

180 points beryilma | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kragen ◴[] 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. bigiain ◴[] No.41909589[source]
On a tangent here, but...

> The ACM canceled its involvement for excellent reasons which are worth reading: https://web.archive.org/web/20000815071233/http://www.acm.or...

This jumped out at me from the first para there:

" ... also stating its opposition to licensing software engineers, on the grounds that licensing is premature ... "

I wonder what ACM's current thinking on licensing software engineers is almost 25 years further on?