←back to thread

186 points beryilma | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
0xbadcafebee ◴[] No.41909738[source]
There appears to be a lot of hate towards this in the comments (because it's not perfect?), but I feel strongly that we need explicit bodies of knowledge, along with certifications for having been trained on it.

Every company I go to, the base of knowledge of all the engineers is a complete crapshoot. Most of them lack fundamental knowledge about software engineering. And they all lack fundamental knowledge about the processes used to do the work.

That's not how engineering should work. If I hire an architect, I shouldn't have to quiz them to find out if they understand Young's Modulus, much less teach them about it on the job. But that's completely normal in software engineering today, because nobody is expected to have already learned a universal body of knowledge.

I get this thing isn't perfect. But not being perfect isn't a rational argument for not having one at all. And we certainly need to hold people accountable to have learned it before we give them a job. We need a body of knowledge, it needs to be up to date and relevant, and we need to prove people have actually read it and understood it. If this isn't it, fine, but we still need one.

(this is, by the way, kind of the whole fucking point of a trade school and professional licensing... why the fuck we don't have one for software engineers/IT, boggles my fucking mind, if this is supposed to be the future of work)

replies(7): >>41909853 #>>41910131 #>>41910397 #>>41910615 #>>41910691 #>>41910982 #>>41911740 #
pnathan ◴[] No.41910615[source]
I'm more than happy to sign onto a reasonable certification. Many good reasons for it. I am, personally, fond of the idea that an ABET certified BSCS should be ground floor level. Other ideas have been floated...

But this particular work is really, really, really awful. For reasons that are well documented.

In the most fundamental sense, the IEEE doesn't understand what professional SWEs need, in appropriate portions. It confuses SWE with PM, badly. And it has done so, historically. To the point of wide condemnation.

replies(2): >>41910831 #>>41911339 #
nradov ◴[] No.41910831[source]
What exactly about the SWEBOK is awful? Could you give us a link to the documentation of reasons? Which sections of the SWEBOK cover topics that professional SWEs don't need to understand, and which major topics are missing?

It isn't possible to be a competent engineer, beyond the most junior levels, without having a pretty solid grasp of project management. You might not need to be a good project manager but in order to make competent engineering decisions you have to understand how your tasks fit into the whole.

replies(1): >>41914160 #
1. pnathan ◴[] No.41914160[source]
The basic problem is you're wrong and also right: it all depends.

That is widely understood as the senior+ swe mantra.

The SWEBOK, on the contrary, asserts "it does not depend" and that in a sense is the core problem.

For a detailed takedown, the ACM's is the most famous, there are others that v3 sparked. I'm sure v4 is sparking it's own detailed analysis ... I'm bowing out to go do my day job now. :)