Programming

Considering the almost complete lack of standards, certification, licensing in most areas of programming, I don't think there's a ton of difference.

I've held both titles without rhyme or reason between the two. Even in areas requiring high compliance - HIPAA, PCI/DSS, NIST Standards, FERPA, etc - training achieved doesn't tend to be reflected in a programmer's title. (Even while the same level of training turns into acronym soup among their IT peers.)

One way I try to live up to the title "Engineer" - even when I don't wear it - is by holding myself to the Engineering Code of Ethics.

Poorly defined nomenclature. Simple as that. I’m an “automation engineer”, have had many other titles, but anytime I write what I do, like LinkedIn or such, I write “programmer”, because it is simple, descriptive, and I like it. I’m old, but I used to like ”hacker” until it came to imply nefarious programming.

It’s a huge faff, you will get a different answer from every person you ask. They’re used interchangeably, and it just doesn’t matter.

To entertain your prompt. Real world engineers (structural, etc.) aren’t entrusted the title because they “care” about what they build, it’s because they have to be correct, and as such, they follow extremely rigid process and take the time to never be wrong. Obviously I do not have real world structural engineering experience, but I think we can all agree on this from an outside point of view.

That’s not how software works most of the time, and it’s even heavily discouraged in a lot of the industry. We learn from failure, and the consequences of software failing are nil compared to the consequences of a bridge failing. This is a huge superpower of software, not a weakness, or some sign of deficiency. It is the key reason software evolves so quickly. Software engineers (or developers, alchemists, whatever) are allowed to fail, learn from mistakes, and improve. They can test completely new, never been done ideas, nearly for free, and nearly instantly.

Again, I don’t really care though what the industry wants to call it, developer or engineer. It doesn’t matter and it’s all made up anyway.

In a lot of places, engineering is a regulated field, meaning you need a certificate to call yourself an engineer. e.g. this lawsuit.

A dev work on some code. It works, great, job done.

An engineer comes to see this work. It hasn't been thoroughly tested, it only works on the dev computer in his coding environment. There is no documentation. There is no comments in the code. Half the features are missing because the story didn't talk about them. Installing the "software" is made by hand and only one person knows how to do that. Some libraries are used with various licences, some are outdated, some can't be maintained, some will download stuff on their own. Performances are shit. I certainly forget a lot of stuff.

Now the engineer will work to solve all these non code problems.

Now the problem is that software companies don't care about engineers because they have managers. Managers will consider engineers like developers and ask them to work like developers. They will also tell the engineer that his lunacies are too time consuming, which means too expensive, so they will go in the backlog and be forgotten.

Yes I'm disillusioned and depressed about working in software development. It's not like this everywhere. Some companies have an engineering culture. Especially when they come from older industries, like electronics or car etc. But I haven't had the chance to work in one for 5 years now.

In my company everyone is called Software Development Engineer 🤷‍♂️

Well, if I remember my software engineering prof correctly, software engineering is mostly about bringing an engineering mindset to software development. You wouldn't just slapdash an airplane together in a weekend and shove it out on the runway. There's a process for making sure we don't kill people with deadly flying contraptions.

Software engineering is that same idea applied to software systems. There is a process for making sure we do our job without causing undo harm. You wouldn't want to just slapdash together something that has to be HIPAA compliant and has to meet other security regulations. You plan. You test. You revise. You ensure the product doesn't publish the sensitive medical records of every patient on the front page before it ends up in production. That is the work of a software engineer.

I think it's just a "branding" difference. I was at a company once that changed everyone's titles from developer to engineer. It was mostly done cause engineer was more hip.

I think developer was more used a decade ago. I would not be surprised if it cycles back at some point. It's just like clothes fashion or whatever.

If someone flies the "software engineer" banner seriously, I expect them to have some theoretic knowledge besides the practical one. They would know different programming paradigms (procedural, OOP, FP), know about programming patterns, layers, UML, and at least a programming language or 4 (3 superficial, 1 in-depth).

A software developer can be any random code-monkey picked up from the street that is self-taught and/or had a boot camp of sorts. Nothing wrong with being self-taught or boot camps, as SDs need to eat, but it lacks a certain level or rigor I would expect from a SE.

If both had a certain amount of experience the SD would mostly catch up to the SE, in practice. Not sure if on theoretic knowledge too, but that depends.

As a former civil engineer who now works in software, "software engineer" irks me. "Engineer" means you're supposed to be licensed and you have a responsibility for the public good above your responsibility to your employer.

I hold an M.Sc. in software Engineering and it is not just a "software developer" but an actual masters degree from an engineering university. It's a civil engineering degree with focus on software and systems that runs software (e.g embedded systems). It is a protected title by law in many countries. I think Americans started abusing the software Engineer title a decade or two ago and hence many think it is just a title anyone can use as they like.

This is probably the most well-researched piece of writing on the matter: https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/are-we-really-engineers/

I am in my first job that’s a full-on “software engineer” title, which is a move I wanted to make. However, leading up to it I have a 20 year engineering career covering various aspects of electronics as well as software.

What I work on is C/C++ that runs the company’s main industrial product, and not some more mainstream web or app development. So it’s software work as part of a multidisciplinary team to design or improve a physical product.

So for those reasons I only think of myself as an “engineer.” But I can totally see how other jobs using similar skills would be more “software dev” or even “I’m in IT.”

They told us in boot camp the difference is about $10k.

IMO an engineer should be able to develop a complex system which an entire company could potentially be based upon.

A developer who isn't an engineer would focus more on individual libraries, apps or tools that don't necessarily require the mindset of an engineer to design and maintain.

Maybe, postulating, as I consider myself an Engineer and not a Developer.

Tangentially related: https://comeriohomes.com/the-difference-between-a-developer-and-a-home-builder-2/

Brainstorm thoughts dated just now

I guess it's in the conveyance of the word? Engineer seems like fitting a puzzle piece. Creating Software in a vast eco-system of language, OS, Frameworks, Platforms, Networks, and views it's progression in time. For instance planned obsolescence, graceful failure in the "pipeline of things", tolerates network topology changes, etc.

Maybe Engineers build with well designed, graphed/drawn, and planned strategy of the components in interaction with all other systems, including OS failings, local Network failing, Internet failing, Management Failings (workplace), on and on. The more things you can account for the more brilliant an Engineer you are.

Software Developer seems more linear. You take an idea and start with a good program. Then it's built up and up until it becomes a great piece of Software.

Finally: professional engineers who engage in title snobbery are often accused of "ring knocking", as if they were physically knocking their iron ring against a desk to point out the size of the dick on top of their shoulders.

a dev can build a thing, an engineer can build a distributed modular thing with more complexity around non programming parts like infrastructure. Take the thing and design a machine of parts and each can be maintained, observed, and optimized as needed. For example we can use topics for backpressure and consumer lag for auto scaling pods, but then you have to consider the distributed processing for duplication, out of order, throughput... there is no exact line in the sand between dev and engineer but that's how I think of it.

I don't wanna add anything here. You are correct on the idea you already have. Keep going 👍