Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

ieeecs-media.computer.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 170 posts

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#81

Post by eacapeisfutuile »

jdlyga wrote: post #79

Yes, there’s been a lot of negativity toward earlier versions of this document. It’s been around for a while and represents a formal, structured, and rigid approach to software development. Historically, it reflects the 1990s era, when waterfall was the preferred method, and there was a push to make software engineering a licensed profession. At the time, we were also in a “software crisis” where large, expensive pro…

Well also now entire companies fail quicker instead.

It is useless because no one will read it or use it as any type of benchmark, probably rightly so here. There is a version of this at every company, just more relevant, also already not being read of course.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#82

Post by creer »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #35

There appears to be a lot of hate towards this in the comments (because it's not perfect?), but I feel strongly that we need explicit bodies of knowledge, along with certifications for having been trained on it. Every company I go to, the base of knowledge of all the engineers is a complete crapshoot. Most of them lack fundamental knowledge about software engineering. And they all lack fundamental knowledge about the…

You are under this illusion about other fields like architects because you don't work there and you can't tell. You don't know how the sausage is made.

Historically I have tended to learn about a new field WAY too much before I tried to hire people in these fields. The truth is, that makes it hard to hire people (but for good reason - depending on your needs, you need to pass on a lot of people). More recently I have tried to pay very close attention to how people do their work (about whose field I am building an interest). The sad reality of the world is that most people and businesses stay in business entirely through dumb luck and because the world is not usually THAT demanding. And if you have a specific requirement, they won't be able to help "out of the box".

You are imagining this competence. It doesn't exist in most people.

And to compound this, to me, the characteristic of an engineer is that they are capable of learning about a specialty discipline. If you hire an engineer and they are incapable of learning something that's needed in your project, THAT is where their problem is (and yours for not hiring to that.) Engineering is not a trade. Certifications are usually about selling them or gatekeeping. I wish it were possible to certify "engineering progress mindset" - no, it doesn't have an ISO number.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#83

Post by creer »

Arainach wrote: post #54
rockemsockem wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see someone post this line of reasoning they talk like this, as if other engineering disciplines all have some cert that is the god-tier cert. While this is true for some engineering fields it's mostly not true and I think that's a good thing because credentialism is bad actually. Also, architects are not even engineers.

Credentialism is good. It provides both a trustworthy reference point and a method for punishment. If I want someone to do work, I want them to be licensed/certified. If they are flagrantly unsafe, I want a licensing board or similar to be able to strip that person of their ability to practice that profession. This raises public perception of the profession as a while, avoids a market for lemons, and gives some basel…

Isn't the reality of things that credentials are a low bar. Yes, even with the legal bar exam, or the PE engineer, etc? When you are hiring, are you really hiring JUST based on that low bar? No! That wouldn't make sense! For example if you have a specific problem, most of the time you are looking for a lawyer who has already worked for a while in THAT specific field. The bar exame is not enough! I feel that's usually the case. And that makes sense. Why just specify "PE engineer"? When there are lots of them who have at least some specialization in the direction you want?

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#84

Post by rhythane »

This book actually makes some sense to me as a software engineer. We’ve all learned this at school, but they were just scattered pieces of knowledge. This book actually offers a way of systematic organization of useful knowledge in production. Content is actually not for learning, but for quick check and review. The organization might not be perfect, but really is a way of reflecting on our understanding in this field.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#85

Post by eacapeisfutuile »

Arainach wrote: post #54
rockemsockem wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see someone post this line of reasoning they talk like this, as if other engineering disciplines all have some cert that is the god-tier cert. While this is true for some engineering fields it's mostly not true and I think that's a good thing because credentialism is bad actually. Also, architects are not even engineers.

Credentialism is good. It provides both a trustworthy reference point and a method for punishment. If I want someone to do work, I want them to be licensed/certified. If they are flagrantly unsafe, I want a licensing board or similar to be able to strip that person of their ability to practice that profession. This raises public perception of the profession as a while, avoids a market for lemons, and gives some basel…

It would have zero value in every process of vetting someone. People don’t care about years of verification in the form of degrees, who do you think will care about some “license to fucking code” given for reading some garbage pdf

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#86

Post by Jtsummers »

kanbankaren wrote: post #58
Niksko wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. Particularly their notion (paraphrasing) that SWEBOK attempts to record generally recognised knowledge in software engineering while excluding knowledge about more specific subdomains of software. That over-deference towards general knowledge coupled with some sort of tie to a similar Australian effort probably explains why the software engineering degree I began in Australia felt like a total waste…

I am guessing that you didn't get value out of it probably because you didn't work in avionics, medicine, defense, etc? Those industries where a software fault is unacceptable and has to work for decades. In some industries like avionics and medical instruments, the programmer might be personally held responsible for any loss of life/injury if it could be proven. Having read Software Engineering and Formal Methods 25…

> In some industries like avionics and medical instruments, the programmer might be personally held responsible for any loss of life/injury if it could be proven.

If you aren't a PE, it's hard to hold you personally responsible unless they can show something close to willful, deliberate misbehavior in the development or testing of a system even in avionics. Just being a bad programmer won't be enough to hold you responsible.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#87

Post by nradov »

pnathan wrote: post #78
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #35

There appears to be a lot of hate towards this in the comments (because it's not perfect?), but I feel strongly that we need explicit bodies of knowledge, along with certifications for having been trained on it. Every company I go to, the base of knowledge of all the engineers is a complete crapshoot. Most of them lack fundamental knowledge about software engineering. And they all lack fundamental knowledge about the…

I'm more than happy to sign onto a reasonable certification. Many good reasons for it. I am, personally, fond of the idea that an ABET certified BSCS should be ground floor level. Other ideas have been floated... But this particular work is really, really, really awful. For reasons that are well documented. In the most fundamental sense, the IEEE doesn't understand what professional SWEs need, in appropriate portions…

What exactly about the SWEBOK is awful? Could you give us a link to the documentation of reasons? Which sections of the SWEBOK cover topics that professional SWEs don't need to understand, and which major topics are missing?

It isn't possible to be a competent engineer, beyond the most junior levels, without having a pretty solid grasp of project management. You might not need to be a good project manager but in order to make competent engineering decisions you have to understand how your tasks fit into the whole.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#88

Post by miffy900 »

TZubiri wrote: post #74
ctz wrote: post #6

Runtime errors surface when a program runs into an unexpected condition or situation such as dividing by zero, memory overflow, or addressing a wrong or unauthorized memory location or device, or when a program tries to perform an illegitimate or unauthorized operation or tries to access a library, for example. The programs must be thoroughly tested for various types of inputs (valid data sets, invalid data sets and…

Reads like chatgpt, or those insufferable linkedin autogenerated ai questions: "How would you secure a system?"

This is the embarrassing bit; this is version 4 of a book that predates ChatGPT by years; knowing that probably most of it is written by humans makes me cringe.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#89

Post by nradov »

Jtsummers wrote: post #75
eacapeisfutuile wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every company I go to, the base of knowledge of all the engineers is a complete crapshoot Sounds like unfortunate companies to go to. > much less teach them about it on the job That is literally how and where people learn the job pretty much everywhere. > it needs to be up to date Yeah, it will never be. > we need to prove people have actually read it and understood it Why/how?

>> it needs to be up to date > Yeah, it will never be. And this particular document will never be up to date. SWEBOK gets updated on the order of every 5-10 years, so it's always going to be dated. This is one reason it's a poor document for its purpose. If they want it to be relevant it needs to be continuously developed and updated. Hire active editors for the different "knowledge areas" (consider even losing that…

I think you missed the purpose of the SWEBOK. It is intended to cover basic fundamentals which don't change much decade by decade. Not the latest JavaScript framework or whatever. Just about everything in the previous version from 2014 is still relevant today.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#90

Post by floydnoel »

jcarrico wrote: post #41
miffy900 wrote: post #27

So at the start of each chapter, the book has a table of abbreviations and their definitions, called 'Acronyms'. To whoever wrote or edited the book: please lookup the definition of the word 'acronym': "an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. NASA)." Not all of the abbreviations listed are acronyms! Most are just plain old initialisms. Since when has anyone ever t…

From Merriam Webster: a word (such as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term also : an abbreviation (such as FBI) formed from initial letters : initialism It appears the meaning of the word has changed over time.

yeah, every time i see somebody call an initialism an acronym i just shrug because you can't argue with words how people use them, irregardless.
Post reply on HN