The engineers I work with all feel that an 'engineer' is one as defined by the IEEE. I am of two schools on it; I agree and I disagree. I disagree only to the extent that disciplines evolve and this is promulgated as systems and dependencies become more and more virtualized. The SW system must undergo a level of rigor to be securely designed and implemented yet modular enough to integrate - this is engineering as I see it.
Software systems are orders of magnitude more complex than the most complex physical or electrical systems. Anyone who doesn't think it's engineering has never written programs for physical systems before. This is interesting because complexity is shifting into software that controls physical systems and out of the physical systems themselves.
Do you want government regulation of the software profession though?
yes, what you have to ask is if it is possible to "certify" a SW system, because that is the key role of the whole "engineer" mess.
basically, a bridge build according to regulation is deemed safe
can you do that on systems engineering ? no, not unless you basically "freeze" the tech landscape and certify it
The key point I am trying to say: You need to look beyond the simple statement, to the consequences
Have a look at what this guy is up to.
https://research.unsw.edu.au/people/scientia-professor-gernot-heiser
(post is archived)