"Programmer" is an Overgeneralization

It's not as boolean as good/evil, but certainly there are ethical challenges to be faced in this particular field. There are many roles to play, so this comment isn't necessarily directed at the parent comment or risk management.

We all know the incredible power of technology. Applying engineering practices and automation to financial markets can be a dangerous game, where the full scope of risk is not yet clear and the repercussions can be disastrous [1][2].

With very few peer-reviewed academic entries and in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008, I would be very uncomfortable applying my skills in this domain. I feel that engineering, if it is to be applied to financial markets, should be centered around bolstering security and reducing risk, not profiteering.

The recession was triggered by a clever system of alleviating risk [3]. When this architecture blew up, financial executives testified before congress citing the "highly complex" nature of the industry as an excuse. I personally do not want to work for this class of people, let alone implement or analyze their trading strategies.

Software is supremely flexible, it can be applied in nearly any industry. We have the ability to wield and program the electromagnetic force of the universe. We can push bits around to genuinely create a better world. That, to me, holds so much more value than a digit in my bank account.

I apologize for the off topic discussion, just wanted to get this out.

[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1695041

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Flash_Crash

[3] http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/861

Edit: formatting.

I think it's still somewhat useful because the skills that make someone a good X programmer, typically make them a good Y programmer as well. The specific knowledge doesn't translate, but the skill does. I was talking with a friend who does very specific DSP work that requires significant amount of esoteric knowledge, and he said, "With a relatively small amount of training, any good programmer can become a good DSP programmer, and any bad programmer can become a bad DSP programmer."

He went on to clarify that he had worked with people from systems-programming backgrounds, all the way up to programmers who had worked chiefly in VB and this seemed to hold no matter what.

On the other hand, I am a generalist programmer with an engineering degree that right at the moment is working on different project in various fields and in each of this project on various layers of technology => the result is that i'm touching at the same time electronic (yeah this even goes beyond programming), low level (drivers, telecom stack), medium level (application infrastructure), databases, user interface, sysadmin, and so over.

Saying that "programmer" means nothing is not completely false, but not completely true either. The application domain matters, but just as in other professions; you can't pretend that "electronic engineer" means nothing, you can't prented that "neutronic engineer" means nothing, even if you don't know if the first one is currently designing electronic boards for missiles or set-top-box, and if the second one is currently designing nuclear weapons or civilian reactor, or doing some radioprotection work.

In that sense saying "programmer" means nothing because there are lot of different programmers with various background and levels is an implicit depreciation of professional highly competent programmers capable of working on anything related to computer programming (and even in a lot of cases, beyond computer programming).

Having learned mathematics at school does not makes me a mathematician, even when I am using that math knowledge in a project, and not more than commentating about a book with friend makes me a literary critic. Doing dilettante or a little of entry level programming does not makes somebody a "programmer" either.

Except that this is comparing apples to carrots.

Scientist includes "computer scientist". At a certain level of competency "programmer" is comparable to "electrical engineer", and while "electrical engineer" does not defined which project you are working on at the moment, it does not need to, and neither does programmer when you are talking about "engineer class" programmers (lot of people are "engineer class" programmers without an engineering degree, but because they learned by themselves; this is fine).

The problem with "programmer" is not the field. It is the level of competency. Only entry/medium level programmers with few theoretical knowledge or only few to medium work experience are unable to work in every areas. That's why you need to precise for them what they are able to do, and implicitly that they are not able to do other things, or that learning how to do those other things would take lot of time. "Engineer class" programmers are generalist programmers, and that is comparable with electrical and other kind of engineers.

Thnks for the civilized reply.

> I personally do not want to work for this class of people, let alone implement or analyze their trading strategies.

Excellent :p