Certainly not at Microsoft.

> 3. That was always kinda bullshit and was unfair to everyone. You've got some guy who's settled, been working for years, made friends, etc. then you check that there's no US qualified worker? That check should have always been the first step of an H1-B. Delaying it actually made me pretty sympathetic to the attempts to game the system to prevent and American from getting the job.

There's a similar evaluation done for H1B.

Which makes sense. Software is generally purchased from a company, not an individual programmer.

> Companies don't really care about being sued either, as evidenced by the fact that they still don't bother to prevent bad code from being shipped.

They do care about code so bad it'll get them a lawsuit.

This is a joke right? Companies get sued for software all the time.

There have been accredited Software Engineering programs in Canada for more than 20 years now.

https://engineerscanada.ca/accreditation/accredited-programs...

One of the requirements to become licensed (if one desires to) is to graduate from an accredited programs.

Several programs have been accredited for software engineering for 20+ years now.

https://engineerscanada.ca/accreditation/accredited-programs...

>

> During the early days of Apollo, software was not taken as seriously as other engineering disciplines. Though in fact we had a complex system of systems, we weren’t getting credit for what was a legitimate field. It was out of desperation I came up with the term, to say: “Hey, we’re engineering too.” It was an ongoing joke for a long time. Then one day in a meeting, one of the most respected hardware gurus explained to everyone that he agreed with me. The process of building software should also be considered an engineering discipline, just like with hardware. It was a memorable moment.

The idea that it was believed you could build a reliable and deterministic system without proper engineering methods, today, would get a laugh out of most people in the industry. Interesting how the times have changed.

>

> If you don't want the same rigor, if you can't handle the same rigor, you don't get the same respect. Because you don't deserve it.

It's an interesting opinion, but the reason nobody took the exam is that, unlike other PE disciplines, there are no jurisdictions with legal requirement to hold a PE license to write software.

For example, here for a building to be constructed, the plans need to be approved by a licensed PE if it's above a certain height and footprint. Note that you only need one PE to approve, not that all engineers working on the design have to hold PE licenses.

"Engineer" isn't in the US. P.E is.

You only need a P.E license if you are going to perform certain specific tasks. For example, in some jurisdiction, plans for a building above a certain height or floor size must be signed by a licensed P.E.

Not all engineering disciplines are covered by a P.E exam.

> I believe in some European countries you’re not allowed to call yourself any kind of “Engineer” without being a member of a professional body? > So ironically if that was the case Margaret Hamilton would not have been allowed to coin the term

Had she been in Europe, she would not have been a part of the Apollo project, something so cutting edge it required new disciplines to be invented like Software Engineering, for the term to be coined in the first place.