🚀 go-pugleaf

In his article Archer Sully <archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com> writes:

>The big problem with software is that for the life-critical stuff a software
>engineer is the last person you would want working on the problem!  Consider,
>who knows more about X-Rays, a trained X-Ray technician, or Joe Programmer?
>Who knows more about how planes fly, a professional pilot or Joe Programmer?

	Indeed.  To parallel from architecture, Joe Programmer is the
draftsman.  The X-Ray technician would be the client needing the building
designed or modified, and the pilot would be the long-term resident of the
building -- normally, these two come from the same background.
	Note that the draftsman need NOT be a licensed engineer or
architect.  However, one will have to vouch for the work.

	Coming back, it seems that New Jersey is trying to create consistency
on what a proclaimed "Engineer" is.  The non-software types are licensed,
go through tests and study, and on licensure can hang out the shingle saying
"No **it Sherlock, I'm an Engineer".   This would do the same, but for the
software types.
	Not too many people in software will need to be licensed.  Just as in
architecture, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, law, medicine,
nursing, ....

		Joseph Beckenbach
-- 
----
Joseph Beckenbach	jerbil@ultra.com	408-922-0100 x246