Structural engineers are unsung heroes

I'm generally interested in the history of architecture of this small part of the world where I currently live (a country in Eastern Europe) and as such I remember reading an architect's memoir about how in the 1940s his architect teacher used to be run off with stones or worse by engineers and construction workers when said older architect would approach a construction site with "new design ideas".

It's much less funny when one knows that one such "star architect" back from that time (George Matei Cantacuzino for those interested, here's his wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Matei_Cantacuzino) was in charge of designing the Carlton building in downtown Bucharest. Only 4 years had passed since the building had been finalized when it collapsed as a result of the November 1940 earthquake. Cantacuzino himself had an apartment in that building but fortunately for him he was out the evening when the earthquake happened so he escaped. He risked prison-time after the whole ordeal, but then we got into war with the Soviets (not such a bright idea) and nothing came out of it. Here's the wiki page for that Carlton building: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocul_Carlton (it's in Romanian, but it has photos with the building itself and the earthquake's aftermath).

Point is I'm sure that the architects can very well handle a small joke as long as they're aware that people's lives depend on their work.

There's a lot of debate about what kind of activity software development is. The camp that doesn't see it as engineering argues that programming is a craft, or that code is "grown".

I think one of the key differentiators for engineering is that something engineered should work by design after it has been built (not including regular maintenance of a machine). A defect requires a special process to repair all built instances.

In software development, defects are a regular occurrence requiring continuing changes, and requirements change as well. Of course, that's very different from a bridge or a combustion engine for example.

Automated testing can help push software development _toward_ an engineering mindset.

BTW - you're right that most software devs don't need licensing or formal education, but it comes off as pejorative. While those could help set standards, some of the most talented people I've worked with have neither (and some of my class mates in college don't affirm a benefit for formal training).

In some places, yes. Ontario, for example, imposes hefty fines on individuals who use the an engineering title without accreditation.

In software development you are solving new problems continually. If you weren't you could just call a library function with some parameters and be done with it.

Structural engineering is much like calling library functions with certain parameters and then making sure it all works and is safe. You know how what you are constructing differs from existing buildings and use that to decide what to do. You don't (usually) invent new ways of building things or building things that are unlike anything that was built before.Therefore such projects are well-known engineering practice, and your skill and knowledge of those practices can be tested and you can be licensed.

Some software development is like that too but most is not, you are creating new designs all the time because your software is for new purposes, not to replace something existing with perhaps a slightly improved version. It's hard to license anybody in "inventing new things".

Try being responsible for the monthly billing runs when (on your first £1 Million month) when the CTO nudges you and says this had better be right or we are both out of a job :-)

This actually happened to me back when I worked for Telecom Gold