On 01/22/2012 08:00 AM, Mark Woodward wrote:
In some ways we are to blame. We software engineers have not taken our
profession seriously. We have not created and/or joined the
professional organizations, like doctors, lawyers, electricians, and
pipe-fitters, to define and protect our
On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:18 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
Says who? People who are PEs? Look up the word engineer on dict.org.
None of the definitions say *anything* about licensure.
Says the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/licensee/dpl-boards/en/
--Rich P.
On Jan 21, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Jared Carlson wrote:
Come on guys... I have an ME and have done software engineering as well as
analysis for DoD, etc.. There's a place for both, you need professional
engineers who understand guidelines and procedures, etc, but you also need
the theoretical
On 1/22/2012 3:05 AM, Matthew Gillen wrote:
Licensing is about having well-established / well-known ways of solving
problems. The problem-space for software is still expanding. I don't
see how you could come up with licensing until your problem set is
stable (unless you take a very small
In all this, I would like to see Engineers and Architects be licensed
individuals, controlled by regulatory boards.
IMHO, the terms 'software engineer' and 'software architect' should be
banned, and replaced with the
'old school' terms of programmers and analysts.
There is noting wrong with the
On Jan 22, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Robert Krawitz wrote:
This analogy is wrong. It isn't construction workers, but people who
participate in the design of a bridge. They don't all need to be PEs; a
PE ultimately may have to sign off on their work (at least for public
infrastructure), but that's
The trouble is that a PE certification proves:
1) You managed to make it through an engineering degree program
2) You practiced as an engineer for 4 years or so
3) You can test well. (Which, given that you got a degree, is likely.)
I know people who meet all these requirements, and are actively
I was talking to an ex-co-worker last night and he said that he's
having trouble finding a programmer to maintain their FORTRAN
codebase. The conversation got me thinking - there must be a way to
automatically change older languages (FORTRAN, etc.) into something
newer. At the very least you
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Richard Pieri wrote:
On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Daniel C. wrote:
Does anyone know of an automated tool to do this? I checked Google
and a few things came up but nothing that looked particularly helpful.
There are several FORTRAN to C source converters out there.
On 1/22/2012 2:02 PM, Daniel C. wrote:
I was talking to an ex-co-worker last night and he said that he's
having trouble finding a programmer to maintain their FORTRAN
codebase. The conversation got me thinking - there must be a way to
automatically change older languages (FORTRAN, etc.) into
On 1/22/12 2:10 PM, Daniel Feenberg wrote:
f2c is really good, but the C code will look mechanically generated, and
not be so easy to maintain itself.
You'll run into this with any machine translation. It's the nature of
the beast. So, the question isn't so much is there a FORTRAN to C
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:42 AM, j...@trillian.mit.edu wrote:
An ongoing semi-problem that dictionary makers have always had is that people
routinely try to use them as authorities for what a word *should* mean. The
actual function of a dictionary isn't to decide what words mean, but
I wasn't there at the right time, but if there are Open Market
alumni on this list who can speak to converting a half million
lines of Tcl to C++ now would be the time to speak up.
--dan
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 04:37:42PM -0500, Richard Pieri wrote:
On Jan 21, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Mark Woodward wrote:
Does anyone have any comment?
Yeah, but it's more rant than anything else. You've been warned.
The title Engineer has a specific, legal meaning.
It also has several
14 matches
Mail list logo
