jreece@td2cad.intel.com (John Reece ) (03/16/88)
Frankly, I don't see anything inherently wrong with there being a PE license available for software engineers - the closest thing now is the one for electrical engineers. It would be another bullet on my resume and another shingle to hang on my wall. However, let's not kid ourselves about individual professional engineering registration being a panacea for the problems of the software industry. Licensing hasn't kept other engineering disciplines from designing Pintos and space shuttles that explode, skyscrapers with windows that pop out in a good wind, airliners that have engines fall off on takeoff, passenger liners without adequate lifeboats, etc.. The difference between these snafus and the software industry's is that companies in other industries must warrant and accept liability for the performance of their products, whereas it has been amply pointed out that software companies disclaim *any* responsibility for their products. The problem with the software industry is not individual competency, it's that the law tolerates corporate incompetency. John Reece System Manager Intel
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (03/17/88)
In article <760@td2cad.intel.com> jreece@td2cad.UUCP (John Reece ) writes: >The problem with the software industry is not individual competency, it's that >the law tolerates corporate incompetency. Not so! It is simply a case that tort law evolves slowly, and there haven't been enough suits yet to lay a firm foundation. It's happening, though. There is still some question about whether professional malpractice can be claimed, but negligence and liability suits are beginning to show in larger numbers. Software caused deaths and major property losses have occurred, and you can be sure someone is going to pay for those! Courts have ruled that standard disclaimers don't always hold in software cases, so legal protection there is eroding. Insurance firms are beginning to look at software engineering requirements being met before issuing insurance, and government agencies are beginning to require certain standards of practice in software contracts. All of these point to an increasing market force to promote care and competence -- not necessarily a bad thing to promote, either. I doubt corporations will be able to ignore these issues much longer (at least, the ones not already aware). Anyone care to wager how long before the first malpractice/negligence suit is filed because a company wrote a (failing) system in assembly language instead of a higher-level language with type checking? What do you think the effect on corporate America will be when that suit is decided for plaintiff and tort precedent is established? Bye-bye toleration of "quick-and-dirty"! -- Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
beyer@houxs.UUCP (J.BEYER) (03/17/88)
In article <760@td2cad.intel.com>, jreece@td2cad.intel.com (John Reece ) writes: > [in part] > passenger liners without adequate lifeboats, etc.. The difference > between these snafus and the software industry's is that companies in > other industries must warrant and accept liability for the performance > of their products, whereas it has been amply pointed out that software > companies disclaim *any* responsibility for their products. Many implied warranties cannot be disclaimed, even though many times the vendors make the disclaimers. The result to the customer is that he/she must go to court. But just claiming there is no warranty does not mean that there is no warranty. -- Jean-David Beyer A.T.&T., Holmdel, New Jersey, 07733 houxs!beyer