Conference 7.286::digital

    
    	Would this licensing require the engineer to take some sort of
    	proficiency test? Is the license renewable at intervals, or is it
    	a one-time shot?
    
    	What's the underlying purpose to this proposed law? Personally, I
    	suspect as you do that it is a method of generating revenues.
    
    	John

    I think so too - done to generate tax revenue only.  Of course, *most*
    things the government does are to bring in money, not to attempt to
    further bona fide social goals....but never mind my opinion on
    government!  I think this is down in there with the state of California
    passing a tax on "snacks" and then generating lots of debates on which
    things are taxable "snacks" and which are non-taxable "foods" (cookies
    are "food", cake is a "snack", etc....).
    
    Of course, there already sort of is a software engineer "license", the
    "Certificate of Data Processing" or some such - seems to only be of
    interest to customers hiring business-application (COBOL) programmers
    since I don't think I know anyone in engineering who has bothered to
    get this scrip.
    
    /Charlotte

  Re questions in .1, maybe somebody who didn't delete the various
  articles as I did can post them here to answer some of your questions.

  Re existing licensing, there also exists a certification program for
  engineers (both HW and SW) sponsored by one of the professional
  societies (IEEE?). Some Digital employees already have such
  certification.

  This issue of licensing engineers has been bouncing around for quite a
  few years. The recent events in New Jersey are the first time it's
  gotten serious in the States. Does anyone know if there are similar
  laws in Europe, where a diploma from an accredited school or other
  certification is required (by law) to be hired into certain job codes?

  Re the social benefits, there is certainly some value to attempting to
  legislate some minimum standard of software quality, as well as to
  identifying and assigning responsibility for "malpractise". But, as
  every software engineer knows, licensing and certification are
  probably the least effective means to accomplish this. I would welcome
  something like a UL/CSA approval process for software products, if it
  could be reasonably implemented. So, based on this, I'm convinced that
  the motivation for the current bill is revenue, not software quality.
  They can't have consulted with a single competent person in the
  software business to have concluded that this bill will have any
  effect on software quality. Yet passage is imminent.

	No, no, no, no....

	The reason these "professional guild" licensing requirements
	get pushed for is to limit entry into a profession.  Always.

	Once you have a "closed" guild, then it becomes more lucrative
	for the current members.  It does not ensure competence....even
	in guilds that we often suppose are beneficial ( like
	the ones that doctors, dentists and pharmacists have set up ).*

	There's nothing wrong with a voluntary association of 
	programmers with a certification organization ( "I have
	passed the Independent Programmers Review Panel" ), but
	government licensing always means:

	1) Patronage
	2) Bureaucracy
	3) Administrators that have control over technical advancement
	4) Corruption
	5) Stagnation

	Think about it....  Physicians' review boards rarely remove
	a doctor's license, even in cases of gross negligence....  It
	takes rape, drug abuse to the point of multiple infractions, and
	so forth, before a doctor is even censured.  Physicians have
	been ruined financially by even broaching the matter of
	another doctor's incompetence to a board.

	Government licensing != assurance of competency .


	Steve H

	* And hairdressers (!), electricians, truck drivers, respiratory
	  therapists, nurses, psychologists, ad nauseum.

Several years back, in about 1985 I believe, the State of New Jersey, 
Department of Motor Vehicles hired a consultant from a Big 8 firm to
build them a new, statewide licensing system.

Before the dust all settled, the state was months late in license issuing
and renewals, up to their ears in complaints, over budget, etc.

It was in the trade papers at the time, especially "Computerworld".

I suspect this debacle (blamed on a Big Eight firm) had something to
do with this licensing trend.  Certainly, its proponents could use this
failed project as "evidence" for their cause.

Of course, licensing would not have affected this at all.

Maybe we should propose to New Jersey that they hire the same firm to
write them a system for tracking the licenses of software engineers...:-)

It was the same Big 8 firm that my bank hired to propose DP standards.
Naturally, they proposed IBM, the bank accepted, planned to phase out the
installed base of VAXes, and that's when I joined Digital.  That's why I
remember that particular Big 8 firm so fondly.

    in other 'Engineering' professions (EE,CE,ME etc..), there are licensing 
    (sp?), example you have to pass E.I.T (Enginner in  training), an 8 hour
     exam, and if passed, then you can apply (after 3 (or 5)  years 
    experiense in the field) to take the professional Engineer exam. 
    another tough exam.
    
    since we have added the name of Engineer to Software, I dont see why
    we cant follow this practise like other Engineers in other fields.
    
    /Nasser

This is being discussed in FOAMER::NEW_JERSEY (286).  If you are
wondering as I was "why even bother licensing software professionals?
What made some assemblyman decide that we need to be licensed?" 
According to one of the noters who met with a legislative aide for the
author of the bill, one of her constituants who came from England
desired some sort of professional recognition like he could get over
there.  Here in the US we did not have such a thing so he "wrote his
assemblyman".  You can read a first hand account in the NJ notes file.

Anyhow, this is an example of bureaucracy gone wild.  We have a pending
bill that will dramatically affect an entire industry all because
someone wanted a certificate to hang on his office wall.

I have a copy of the bill.  It is obvious in reading it that the author
knows nothing about the software industry and the little, if any,
industry input went into it.  TO be license you must either 1) have
industry experience or 2) you must have proper academic credentials.  In
addition you must pass a test to be given twice yearly.

Obviously the author has no idea of the large number of, and prominant,
people in the industry who do not have computer science or engineering
degrees and that her will will only serve to exclude such people in the
future.  She also must not realize is that the is no way for the State
of New Jersey to come up with a fair competency test in what is
basically a creative profession.  

I think this bill will be defeated in the Senate.  If it were to pass I
think it would drive up the salaries of those of us already in the
profession and would make it impossible for bright young people to get
into it.

John

    
    	re .4
    
    >>>The reason  these "professional guild" licensing requirements
    >>>get pushed for is to limit entry into a profession. Always.
    
    	If this were the case, then I'd expect current software engineers
    	to be behind the push to license. In this case, it's only the 
    	government doing the pushing, from what I understand.
    
    	As an aside, does anyone know of any suits filed because of a
    	program that did not perform up to expectations, i.e., software
    	incompetency? If so, what were the results?
    
    	John
    
    	PS. Steve...don't forget real estate agents!

    Re .4:
    
    Actually, hairdressers deal with hair and even some blood (microscopic
    nicks at least), so they need to know proper techniques for preventing
    contagion.
    
    
    Re .7:
    
    Being a creative field does not mean that practitioners do not need to
    know the fundamentals.  There are a lot of software engineers in
    Digital who seem unaware of some basic concepts.  I don't support
    government licensing, but let's not exclude any possible measure of
    competency.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .8: legal cases of "bad" software...
    
      There are currently cases before the courts in the U.S. regarding
    a radiation therapy machine that was controlled by a PDP-11 whose
    software appeared to malfunction. The machine delivered either a
    beam of electrons or neutrons at various levels to be directed against
    tumours. It is alleged that due to faulty software, both beams could
    be administered at the same time, resulting  in serious injury, and
    leading to death in several cases.
    
      Interestingly, the company that designed the machine, a division
    of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., resides in the province of Ontario
    where Engineering Licenses are required for work wherever public
    safety is involved. Candidates applying for a Professional Engineering
    license in Ontario who specialize in software must have double the
    experience time that is required for all other disciplines (4 years
    as opposed to 2 years for all other engineering disciplines).
    
      Where public safety is involved (i.e. nuclear reactor controls,
    air traffic control systems) licensing is one way to attempt to
    ensure that the "quality" of the software is sufficient to ensure
    public safety. For billing systems and Nintendo games, licensing
    is ludicrous.
    
    Chris 

    This topic is a big deal only if the New Jersey proposal differs
    greatly from the way engineers of all disciplines are licensed in the
    U.S.  In most states, in order to call a person a "registered
    professional engineer," he or she must go through a two-step licensing
    process which includes experience or a relevant degree, testing, and
    more experience.  Also in most states, there is an "industry exemption"
    big enough to drive a truck through.  Employees of a company need not
    become RPEs in order to practice their craft.
    
    All cynical speculation in this note aside, the laws were passed in
    order to assure that engineers who signed off work affecting the
    general public were qualified in their field.  Note that people who
    write construction articles for _Popular Science_ or _Popular
    Electronics_ are generally not RPEs, but people who design bridges and
    medical electronics usually are licensed.
    
    The real question here is whether "software engineering" has matured
    enough to be an engineering discipline on a par with others.  The
    proposed law answers the question affirmatively.
    
    Wes

    
    
      Generally,  the law recognizes 2 distinct types of licensing.
    
    		1)  Licensing designed to protect the public interest
    		2)  Licensing designed to raise revenue,  where 
    			payment of a fee is generally the only
    			requirement.
    
      Does anybody know for sure which of these 2 goals NJ is
    	trying to achieve?  
    
    
    						-al

>           <<< Note 1542.12 by MUDHWK::LAWLER "Not turning 39..." >>>
>                       -< What's the underlying reason? >-
>
>      Generally,  the law recognizes 2 distinct types of licensing.
>    
>    		1)  Licensing designed to protect the public interest
>    		2)  Licensing designed to raise revenue,  where 
>    			payment of a fee is generally the only
>    			requirement.
>    
>      Does anybody know for sure which of these 2 goals NJ is
>    	trying to achieve?  
>    
>    						-al
>


Al,

There is another reason for licensing.  With a licensing arrangment, you 
can control supply and demand - of and for software professionals.  Lets 
face it - salaries go down the more graduates of the Matchbook School of 
Programming that abound.  The more there are, the less one gets paid.  The 
less there are, the more.  You get the picture.

No matter what the reason, the effect will be restrictions on the number of 
professional programmers.  The guidelines will, no doubt, be designed by a 
state funded educational institution because of a publically perceived 
impartiality in the resultant regulations.

The professional engineers in several states DO allow entry of software 
professionals but their educational background is the basis; not 
professional skills, years of experience, number of patents, book/papers 
published, etc., etc., etc.  The educational background is more important 
than the ability to do the work.

Bruce

    Let's not forget another beneficiary of licensing -- testing
    organizations like ETS (Educational Testing Service in Princeton, NJ).
    It is nominally a "non-profit" organization, but in reality, its
    top brass draw huge salaries.

    BTW, I read somewhere, ETS is not really in Princeton, but in a
    neighbouring town, and the address is just a postal courtesy.

RE: .4

In the traditional engineering diciplines (mechanical, civil, electrical, etc.),
licensing, with examinations, etc., exists to protect the public interest.
If you have a design for a major public sports arena, you want to have
some assurance that the civil engineer on whose expert advice you are relying
knows what they are talking about.  These disciplines all have certification
programs.  Others can practice the discipline, but there are certain functions
(such as approving plans for major public works) that only certified engineers
are allowed to do.

These certification programs do have a reason for existing that goes well
beyond exclusionary guildsmanship.

--PSW

I read as much of the proposed law as I could stand.  The way I read it,
you'd have to be licensed to call yourself a "software engineer."
I predict lots of title changes to "programmer" if the law passes.

RE:  <<< Note 1542.17 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>I read as much of the proposed law as I could stand.  The way I read it,
>you'd have to be licensed to call yourself a "software engineer."
>I predict lots of title changes to "programmer" if the law passes.

I don't think you could get away with that.  For those of you who are
interested in your own interpretation I have typed in excerpts of the
bill in question that contain.

I have not intended to edit the bill to sway your opinion.  The thing is
just too long.  The text is as-is with the following parts removed:

o Some of the definitions of terms (3)
o The part about the organization of the board except enough to convey
that these are paid political patronage positions. (4,5,7,)
o Exclusions [i.e. people with other professional licenses, federal
employees, and students] (10)
o Foreign applications (12)
o Fees (13)
o Issuing of Licenses (15)
o Reciprocity (16)
o Temporary Licenses (17)
o Ammendments to other laws (18,19,20)

My edits are marked with long elipses.


ASSEMBLY, No. 4414

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

INTRODUCED JANUARY 24, 1191

By Assemblywoman KALIK, Assemblymen CASEY, Spadoro and Mazur

AN ACT providing for the licensure of software designers, amending
P.L.1971, c.60, P.L.1974, c.46 and P.L.1978, c.73, and supplementing
Title 45 of the Revised Statutes.

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New
Jersey:

1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Software Designers'
Licensing Act."

2.  The Legislature finds and declares that the public interest requires
the regulation of the practive of software designing and the
establishment of clear licensure standards for softare designers, and
that the welfare of the citizens of this State will be protected by
identifying to the public those individuals who are qualified and
legally authorized to practive software designing.

3. As used in this act:
....
"Software designing" means the process of creating software systems and
applies techniques that reduce software cost and complexity which
includes, but is not limited to, the elements of requirements designing,
design specification, implementation testing and validation, operation
and maintenance and software management.

4. These is created within the Dibision of Consumer Affairs in the
Department of Law and Public Safety the State Board of Software
Designers.  The board shall consist of nine members who are residents of
this State who shall be appointed by the Governor.  ....

6. Members of the board shall be compensated and reimbursed for expenses
and provided with office and meeting facilities pursuant to section 2 or
P.L.1977, c.285 (c.45:1-2.5).
....
9. No person shall practive, or present himself as able to practive,
software unless he possesses a valid license as a software designer in
accordance with the provisions of this act.
....
11.  To be eligible for licensure as a software designer, an applicant
shall submit to the board satisfactory evidence that he has:

a. (1) graduated from a program in software designing which has been
approved for the education and training of software designers by an
accrediting agency recognized by the Council on Post-Secondary
Accreditation and the United States Department of Education; or
    (2) Work experience in a current or previous position of employment
utilizing the theory and procedures of software designing for a
sufficient period of time as determined by the board; and

b.  Successfully completed a written examination administered by the
board pursuant to the section 14 of this act to determine his competence
to practice software designing.
....
14.The written examination required in section 11, 12, or 13 of this act
shall test the applicant's knowledge of software designing theory and
procedures and any other subjects the board may deem usefull to test the
applicant's fitness to practice software designing.  Examinations shall
be held within the State at least once every six months at a time and
place to be determined by the board.  The board shall give adequate
written notice of the examination to applicants for licensure and
examination.

If an applicant fails the examination twice, the applicant may take a
third examination not less than one year nor more than three years from
the date of the applicant's initial examination.  Additional
examinations shall be in accordance with standards set by the board.
....

21.  This act shall take effect immediately, except that section 9 shall
remain inoperative until the 365th day after enactment.

Last weekend, I tried in vain to argue against licensing of software
engineers with my wife and brother-in-law. I could not convince them this
was wrong. 


Next time I'll know better than to argue the point with a CPA (certified
public accountant) and a lawyer ;-) ;-)

    Just another little bite into our liberty from big brother.  

    Just another cost added to the overhead of doing business.

    Just more red tape.

    One more way to CONTROL the people.

    One more way to make us less competitive in the world markets.

    And by the way, how long do you think it will take for someone to
    decide that a drug test would make a nice little addition to the
    requirements?

    Here's the article as it appeared in MacWEEK:
    
From MacWEEK, 8/6/91, page 206:

New Jersey may regulate programmers
  by Raines Cohen

  Trenton, N.J. -- "Have license, will program" could become the slogan
of New Jersey-based developers because of a bill passed by the New
Jersey State Assembly that would require a license to design software.
  Assembly Bill 4414, adopted June 24, would require developers to meet
certain education requirements and pass a written exam before being allowed
to design software in New Jersey.
  The bill, introduced by Assemblywoman Barbara Kalik, attempts to regulate 
the creation and maintenance of computer software.  The bill has not yet 
been introduced for passage in te state Senate, which is out of session 
until Labor Day.
  The bill purports to protect the welfare of New Jersey citizens by
"identifying ... those individuals who are qualified and legally authorized
to practice software designing."  To do so, the governor would appoint a 
nine-member board of software designers to issue and renew licenses.
  Although no penalties are specified, the bill states, "No person shall
practice, or present himself as able to practice, software designing unless
he possesses a valid license as a software designer in accordance with the
provisions of this act."  Federal employees or contractors, as well as
students, provisional licensees and people licensed in other states, are
exempted.
    

    Actually, I'm surprised Mass. didn't think of it first.  Mass must
    have at least 10 times more software engineers than NJ.
    
    Geez, just think of the revenue possibilities if Mass. were to adopt
    this and become the first state with a reciprocity agreement with NJ.
    

    re: -.1
    
    Ah, but think how many more engineers would be forced out of work
    because they didn't meet the state-determined requirements, thereby
    increasing an already giant unemployment expense.
    
    Mary

RE: .22

At this point I think that many of us would be willing to trade 
Flim Flam Florio for Michael Dukakis.

John

          <<< Note 1542.22 by LEDS::PRIBORSKY "I'd rather be rafting" >>>
    
    >    Actually, I'm surprised Mass. didn't think of it first.  Mass must
    >    have at least 10 times more software engineers than NJ.
    
    
    Not so fast. The list of companies that have huge programming/SE staffs
    here is pretty long: AT&T, ADP, Merck, all the Banks/Brokerages, GE,
    etc.,etc. While Mass might have more developers, I don't think it's
    anywhere near 10 times.
    
    What has come about lately is that all the biggie corps., in concert 
    with Adapso (the DP industry lobby group). are lobbying like crazy
    to get this dumped. An Adapso spokesman commented that the law has
    "a snowball's chance in hell" of passing the Senate.
                           

Does that mean software from out of NJ would need to be certified by a
licensed engineer?

The whole situation seems pretty certifiable to me!

- Mike 

    Just to bring this discussion marginally back to the topic, this and
    the next reply are two excerpts from the Internet Risks Digest which
    explain something about why engineers are licensed.  Note that at
    Digital very few engineers in older fields than software engineering
    are required to be licensed, and very few are.
     
RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest  Tuesday 30 July 1991  Volume 12 : Issue 11
 
        FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS 
   ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
 
 ALL CONTRIBUTIONS CONSIDERED AS PERSONAL COMMENTS; USUAL DISCLAIMERS APPLY.
 Relevant contributions may appear in the RISKS section of regular issues
 of ACM SIGSOFT's SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES, unless you state otherwise.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 91 09:04:08 PDT
From: "Dr. Tom @MKO, CMG S/W Mktg" <blinn@dr.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Data entry is NOT software engineering.
 
In RISKS 12.10, Bill Murray and Bob Frankston comment on the NJ legislation
requiring the registration of "software engineers".
 
On the whole, I agree with Bill Murray.  In spite of the fact that I program,
and have even done a certain amount of "software engineering", I doubt that I
could qualify as a "registered professional software engineer", in spite of my
formal education (at the doctoral level) in computer and computing science and
applied statistics.
 
I find it amusing that Bob Frankston asks "What about a VCR programmer?"  The
stories of unusable human interfaces in commercial VCRs abound, but I'd hardly
characterize the "data entry" aspect of most home VCR use as "programming".  
In fact, if "VCR programmers" were really software engineers, they probably
would have learned (at least a modicum) of human factors considerations, and
the products extant in the marketplace might be more approachable.
 
Bob assumes the legislature is attempting "to codify what is not understood."
Actually, the registration and certification of professional engineers is well
understood, and it is the very lack of such that evidences the non-professional
status of our business.
 
Dr. Thomas P. Blinn, Digital Equipment Corporation, Digital Drive -- MKO2-2/F10
Merrimack, New Hampshire 03054  ...!decwrl!dr.enet.dec.com!blinn (603) 884-4865

    Here is a comment on why licensing of professional engineers serves the
    public.
    
    
RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest  Tuesday 30 July 1991  Volume 12 : Issue 11
 
        FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS 
   ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator
 

------------------------------
 
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 91 17:06:29 -0400
From: padgett%tccslr.dnet@uvs1.orl.mmc.com (A. Padgett Peterson)
Subject: Software Engineering Registration (NJ)
 
	The concept of registration for "software engineering" seems novel in
that the proposal seems to both go too far and not far enough (thanks Bill).
The concept that all programming be regulated, even all commercial programming,
is ludicrous. At the same time certain catagories of programming cry out for
regulation.
 
	As a licensed Professional Engineer, my primary responsibility is to
ensure that certain engineering tasks are done in accordance with regulation
and in a safe manner. The state of Florida has decided that I (as a result of
experience and testing) am competant to determine this. One of the
not-so-evident responsibilities is to not accept work that I am not qualified
to perform.
 
	In the past, I have had the opportunity to work on many projects that
did not require licensing including digital flight controls for several
aircraft and a communications topology for the FAA National AirSpace Plan, two
areas that probably should have been covered by such licensing.
 
	Other areas that come to mind are many medical software elements,
computer assets used for road and traffic control, and emergency
telecommunications networks. Certainly, IMHO in recent months we have seen
several examples of what happens when software is developed without evident
control.
 
	That complex software is difficult to debug does not seem to be an
adequate defense for mistakes yet as more and more software replaces mechanical
processes, the potential for danger increases. Certainly the computer in my
wife's car is easily overridden since mechanical linkages from the wheel to the
steering and from the accelerator to the throttle plate still can override any
electrical command. A computerized highway control system is another matter.
Consider the implications if a traffic signal were to display green in all
directions simultaneously. (Yellow might be worse).
 
	Consequently, as more sophisticated systems come into use, a formal
method needs to be established to determine that adequate safeguards are
provided. The problem is that often, only the designer or design team has the
expert knowlege of a particular system required to determine its safety.
 
	This is the reason that registration of engineers came about in the
first place: since every critical design cannot be validated, we have to
validate the designer. It is not the perfect answer, merely the best choice
from what we have.
 
	The major problem that comes about is in designing a certification
process that achieves its goals, not an easy task in any discipline but even
more so in software since it is still evolving. In electrical engineering, the
processes involved in providing adequate power for a building are well defined
and codes have been developed that set out these rules. Nothing similar exists
for software.
 
	To make matters more difficult, while electrical quanta are reasonably
well defined (Alternating Current usually means either 60 or 400 hertz for most
purposes & leads and lags are well defined), good computer software must 
consider the platform, clock speed, memory speed, bus speed, race conditions, 
failure conditions and a host of other variables, something many programmers
are insulated from.
 
	Consequently, at some point, critial designs must be examined by
someone who understands not merely the software, but the compiler, the
operating system, the CPU, and the installation as well. I would not feel very
safe near a nuclear power facility using a control program designed in Visual
BASIC by someone who only understood Windows (trademarks acknowleged) though
the approach might be well suited to balancing my checkbook.
 
	I can see a very valid need for a counterpart in software to the same
certifications a licensed engineer makes when signing off on an engineering
design: (in English)
 
1) I am competent to decide if this design is safe and meets applicable design
   standards.
 
2) I have examined this design in sufficient detail to make this determination.
 
3) Based on study and in my professional opinion this design is safe & 
   meets all applicable standards.
 
4) By affixing my seal, I personnaly certify that this design and my study 
   of it meet the above criteria.
 
	While the general public is often only aware of (3), all elements are
actually present and failure of any element is grounds for censure/suspension
/revocation of a professional license - in fact most of the board actions that
I see result from defects in (1) or (2).
 
	It should also be mentioned that in many organizations, often only the
Chief Engineer needs to be licensed. I would suspect that a Software 
Engineering license would be much the same.
 
	In short, I can see a very real need for such a licensing requirement,
not globally but for those engaged in approval of critical or safety-related
projects. The major problem will come from the certification process itself
given the bewildering array of platforms, embedded micro-controllers, and
languages. It will not be trivial to impliment but is something that needs to
be done.
					A. Padgett Peterson, P.E.

    FWIW, I worked in a nuclear plant for a year or so as as systems
    engineer.  I corrected many errors found on technical design sheets
    that had two PE stamps with signatures.  The quality was, in my
    opinion, not tremendously improved by having PEs approve the paperwork.
    The reason this became a problem was because the PEs only assured that
    the design *on the particular page* was done per standards.  They did 
    NOT verify any sort of interoperability with the system.  Yet, managers
    and engineers that perused the paperwork and saw all those stamps and
    signatures naturally assumed that there was some sort of system-level
    quality assurance.  There was not.  That entire task was left up to me.
    
    I've taken and passed the EIT.  But, I've not pursued getting my PE
    much further than that.  Part of the problem is that I am required to
    get the signatures of 3 PEs that are very familiar with my work.
    I've been told to just ignore that, since the stuff I've patented and
    published about and the stuff I do on a daily basis is pretty specialized. 
    Just find 3 PEs and get them to sign.  If I bone up for it, I'm sure I
    can pass the PE exams.  But, the stuff I would be boning up on has
    little or nothing to do with what I work on.  The reason for the delay
    in taking the PE exams after the EIT is so that I can get work
    experience.  But, this experience doesn't have much at all to do with
    what the PE seems oriented towards.   Is it any wonder that I'm a bit 
    cynical about going for a PE?
    
    I may still go for it someday.  Probably when and if a job requires it.
    But, it will be a technicality.  There will be no real value added in
    my performance.  It might only go to help set up a smoke screen of
    apparent quality similar to what I was given at the nuclear plant.
    
    Steve
                                                                      

re .30

 
> Bob assumes the legislature is attempting "to codify what is not understood."
> Actually, the registration and certification of professional engineers is well
> understood, and it is the very lack of such that evidences the non-professional
> status of our business.


The registration and certification of professional engineers is well understood
in areas where there is fairly widespread agreement on practices and the body
of knowledge required for competent operation.  Takes a while to develop that
body of knowledge and practice to the point that it is stable enough to allow
development of a certification process, no?  Has software engineering reached
that state yet?

Also, what exactly is it that I would certify as a professional SW engineer?
Based on the comments in .31, I don't think I could certify a piece of software!
Certainly not anything written in a high level language.  I might be able to
certify that I followed specific language guidelines and implementation 
techniques, but nothing about safety or correctness of operation.  (Want to see
me change the results with a compiler switch?  Or a shift to another hardware
platform, OS, or RTL?)

I could only certify a specific operational system, which would require detailed
knowledge of the hardware's operational characteristics, the operating system's
characteristics, the compiler and other layered products, and the actual 
operating environment.  Good luck passing the tests and keeping your certificate
up to date!

/Dave

One page 68 of the Aug 15th issue of Datamation there is an ad for
the Institute for Certification of Computer Professionals (ICCP).
The offer certification as a Certified Computer Programmer, Certified
Data Processor, Certified Systems Processional, and Associate Computer
Professional. 

From the add it sounds like a for-profit organization running the
equivalent of a degree mill. 

John

    Yup, I've heard of it and even had some dealings with them about 8 years
    ago.  At the time I was working for a large consulting company that
    placed some value of its employees "earning" one of these certificates,
    however, at that time I believe the only certification they were
    pushing was the Certified Data Processor.  You were required to take an
    exam which consisted of 5 parts; Programming, Systems Analysis,
    Accounting, Management, and Numerical MEthods (or some such). 
    Basically you had to register to take the exam (given twice a year) 
    usually at a local college campus... cost (8 yrs or so ago)
    approximately $150 to take all 5 parts at once.  I did all of them,
    passed 4, then took the final session and passed the next time around. 
    A few weeks later, I got this nice certificate (suitable for framming),
    received a nice raise on my next review and promptly filed the
    certificate away somewhere in the attic; haven't seen it  or thought
    about it since until I read the previous note...;^)
    
    Cheers,
    
    Cody

    Twenty years ago, at least, the CDP was basically an exam for
programmer/analysts. It had incisive questions like "What are the 5 divisions of
a COBOL program". On the other hand, I spoke with some of the peopls taking it
the same day, and some were taking it for the third or fourth time. The claim
was that only about 30% of the exam takers passed.

>What are the 5 divisions of a COBOL program.

I see you remember COBOL well.

Hey, I studied COBOL for 2 entire days for that exam :-)

So, how many divisions are there anyhow? IDENTIFICATION, ENVIRONMENT, DATA,
FILE(?), PROGRAM?

Identification, Environment, Data, Procedure.

Files are declared in the Environment and Data Divisions.

    
    COBOL is pathetic. I'd rather program in Micro2.
    
    /prc

I'd rather program in COBOL that C.

- Mike

    
    
    Real programmers program in C -- and still write code that is readable,
    functional, and maintainable.
    
    	

    re .-1
    Rubbish.
    q

RE: .41

BULL!!!!
Real programmers program in the machine language. (-;

- George

    re: .43 
    .macro  M_WRITE_ADDRESS
    
      movw   ucb$w_hw_current_address(r5),drv_gpci_address(r4) ;ld addr.into DRV
      bisw2  #drv_csrb_m_dir, drv_csrb(r4)	; set drv I/O B as output
    
      bicw2  #drv_gpci_control_m_lr1,drv_gpci_control(r4) ; start address pulse
      extzv  #ucb_parity_v_address,#1,ucb$b_hw_parity_bucket(r5),r3 ;get pty bit
      insv   r3,#drv_gpci_control_v_parity,#1,drv_gpci_control(r4) ; put pty bit
      bisw2  #drv_csra_m_dir, drv_csra(r4)	; set drv I/O A as output
      bisw2  #drv_gpci_control_m_lr1,drv_gpci_control(r4) ; end address pulse
    
      bicw2  #drv_csra_m_dir, drv_csra(r4)	; reset drv A as input
      bicw2  #drv_csrb_m_dir, drv_csrb(r4)	; reset drv B as input
    
    .endm	M_WRITE_ADDRESS
       
Scooter  8^)

re: .44
rubbish. Real programs are written in DIBOL or BLISS!


with appoligies,

Lee  ;^}

Ok, many of you have probably seen this before, but with the track of the last 
few replies, I just had to enter it here. Every time I read this I end up
laughing hysterically... hope it has the same effect on you.


How to Determine Which Programming Lanuage you are Using

The proliferation of modern programming languages which seem to have stolen 
countless features from each other sometimes makes it difficult to remember 
which language you are using. This guide is offered as a public service to 
help programmers in such dilemmas.


C:		You shoot yourself in the foot.

Assembly:	You crash the OS and overwrite the root disk. The system 
		manager arrives and shoots you in the foot. After a moment of
		contemplation, the system manager shoots himself in the foot 
		and then hops around the room rabidly shooting at everyone in 
		sight.

APL:		You hear a gunshot, and there's a hole in your foot, but you
		don't remember enough linear algebra to understand what the 
		hell happened.

C++:		You accidently create a dozen instances of yourself and shoot 
		them all in the foot. Providing emergency medical care is
		impossible since you can't tell which are bitwise copies and
		which are just pointing at others and saying, "that's me, over 
		there."

Ada:		If you are dumb enough to actually use this language, the 
		United States Department of Defense will kidnap you, stand you 
		up in front of a firing squad, and tell the soldiers, "Shoot 
		at his feet."

Modula/2:	After realizing that you can't actually accomplish anything in 
		the language, you shoot yourself in the head.

SH, CSH, etc.:	You can't remember the syntax for anything, so you spend five 
		hours reading man pages before giving up. You then shoot the
		computer and switch to C.

Smalltalk:	You spend so much time playing with the graphics and windowing 
		system that your boss shoots you in the foot, takes away your
		workstation, and makes you develop in COBOL on a character 
		cell terminal.

FORTRAN:	You shoot yourself in each toe, iteratively, until you run out 
		of toes; then you read in the next foot and repeat. If you run
		out of bullets, you continue anyway because you have no 
		exception-processing ability.

Algol:		You shoot yourself in the foot with a musket. The musket is 
		esthetically fascinating, and the wound baffles the adolescent 
		medic in the emergency room.

COBOL:		USEing a COLT45 HANDGUN, AIM gun at LEG.FOOT, THEN place 
		ARM.HAND.FINGER on HANDGUN.TRIGGER, and SQUEEZE. THEN return 
		HANDGUN to HOLSTER. Check whether shoelace needs to be retied.

BASIC:		Shoot self in foot with water pistol. On big systems, continue 
		until entire lower body is waterlogged.

PL/I:		You consume all available system resources, including all 
		offline bullets. The Data Processing & Payroll Department 
		doubles its size, triples its budget, acquires four new 
		mainframes, and drops the original one on your foot.

SNOBOL:		You grab your foot with your hand, then rewrite your hand to 
		be a bullet. The act of shooting the original foot then 
		changes your hand/bullet into yet another foot (a left foot).

lisp:		You shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the gun with 
		which you you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds the
		gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which holds
		the gun with which you shoot yourself in the appendage which
		holds the gun with which you ...

English:	You put your foot in your mouth, then bite it off.

    re: .46
    
    I loved it and had never seen it before!  However, it needs to be
    updated for VMS.  May I suggest...
    
    Drop PL/I and replace with...
    
ALL-IN-1:	You consume all available system resources, including all 
		offline bullets. The Data Processing & Payroll Department 
		doubles its size, triples its budget, acquires four new 
		9000s, and drops the original uVAX II on your foot.
    
    
    Bob

    

This sort of nonsense about "real programmers" has been going on far too
often in far too many forums.  I hereby propose MY definition:

	*REAL* programmers can program competently in whatever programming
	language the customer wants them to use.  If a choice is available,
	the *REAL* programmer selects the language best suited to the needs
	of the application.  A *REAL* programmer knows that there is no 
	such thing as the one best programming language for all purposes,
	and therefore is skilled in a variety of popular languages, and
	can write correct, efficient and maintainable applications in any
	of them.

				Steve

re .-1

Agreed.   In a similar vein,  one of the silliest job requirements 
one sees is "must know language FOO".

Well, no, I don't know language FOO.    But if it's yer basic sort of
algorithmic language with the usual sorts of constructs, give me
a couple of weeks with a compiler and I'll be able to read it well
and program in it sort-of ok, although I might be a little slow
at first.    Languages that use weird approaches (LISP, or SNOBOL4 ['cept
I know that one now]) might take a little longer.

If I couldn't do that, I wouldn't be much of a programmer.

    re: .48
    
    $ SET MODE/SARCASM=ON
    
    Gee, Steve, to do what you'd say, we'd actually have to (*GASP*) LISTEN
    TO THE CUSTOMER, and (*GULP*) GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT!  Surely, "real
    programmers" don't do THAT!  8^O
    
    $ SET MODE/SARCASM=OFF
    
    *REAL* programmers solve *REAL* problems!
    
    -- Russ

    re .48...
    
    Of course, those of us who program for fun and profit know that.  But
    very early in this string it was established that the first impulse for
    this was an isolated comment by a single professional obsessed with the
    need for paper credentials to a lawyer and representative of the state
    bureaucracy.  None of your logic or mine applies when lawyers,
    bureaucrats, and insecure individuals are at work.
    
    Cynically,
    
    Dick

    Something most unusual happened here recently...
    
    All the people I work with who previously had
    the title 'Secretary' seem to have now become a
    
    	'General Support Specialist'
    
    Some questions came to mind:
    
    - Where are all the Generals hiding? I couldn't find any in the
      telephone list, and I haven't heard about any revolution currently
      in progress within Digital.
    
    - How long before the issues surrounding qualifications / licencing /
      professionalism of Engineers are avoided by reclassing us all as
    
    	'Hardware or Software Design Specialists'
    
    David.
    
    (General Specialist... Does this qualify for oxymoron of the month?)

Isn't an admiral the naval equivalent of a general?  That would make Grace
Murray Hopper's secretary sort of a general support specialist.

Many of the copies of this law I have seen floating around the net say

	Software [Engineer] Designer

without a clear explanation of why both terms are included.

In any case, if there is a Board of Examiners with a staff whose salary is
paid by collecting licensing fees, you can bet that they will go after any
title that even remotely implies [Engineering] Design.

/john

RE:             <<< Note 1542.54 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>Many of the copies of this law I have seen floating around the net say
>
>	Software [Engineer] Designer
>
>without a clear explanation of why both terms are included.

The text included in []s was the text of the original bill before
amended.  In this case "Software Engineer" was in original bill
was replaced by "Software Designer" in the bill as approved by the
assembly.

John

Funny, my sister-in-law works at TI in Texas...  She is a Software 'Engineer' 
and they recently were forced into a title change to get around some new
law...  I think they are actually called 'designers' now...

/mike

re: .56

There's no new law here in Texas.  Perhaps it had something to do with some
customer requirements.

Bob

    Re .56:
    
    Hmm, maybe if software engineering license laws get passed, we should
    start calling ourselves "legislators".  Then I wouldn't mind if the
    legislature made a law regulating legislators . . .
    
    
    				-- edp

>    <<< Note 1542.57 by SCAACT::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow" >>>
>                               -< NOT IN TEXAS! >-
>
>re: .56
>
>There's no new law here in Texas.  Perhaps it had something to do with some
>customer requirements.
>
>Bob

Actually TI does business all over...  Perhaps they changed the whole companies
procedure to accommodate some state law somewhere else?

I'll ask her!

Sorry for the bum information...

/mike

    
    Re: last few
    
    In most states, you legally cannot use the title of "Engineer" or
    "[Fill in the blank - Mechanical, Electrical, etc.] Engineer" without
    being a licensed PE. In most cases, this doesn't apply to engineers
    working as employees of companies. It *does* apply if, to state a
    well-known example, you go out on your own and hang out your shingle as
    "Joe Blow, Engineer," or claim the credential in a like fashion.
    
    This would apply to Software Engineers, for use of the term "Engineer,"
    not "Software." This is regardless of the current state of practice in
    the software industry.
    

You folks may have read that in response to the malfeasance of New
Jersey's answer to Michael Dukakis, Jim Florio, there has been a major
shake up in the state legislature.  The Republicans went from having a
minority in both houses to having a veto-proof majoring in both houses.
The sponsors of this legislation were among those low-life-scum that
were sent packing during this "house" cleaning. 

John

As mentioned earlier, the sponsor of the legislation, Barbara Kalik
and her fellow tax-and-spend cronies were ousted from the New Jersey 
state legislature.  Last week Flim-Flam-Florio appointed her to the state
parole board where she will have to get by on a $75,000 a year salary.

John

    
    
    	$75K...  Is that a raise?