TL;DR: Yes, if it mandates good practises; No, because it doesn't matter.
It wasn't too long ago where most programming jobs required some degree, and any important position required at least a masters. It didn't matter, self-taught devs were excelling beyond those with a degree.
If every software development project followed an agreed upon set of standards: l10n, a11y, GDPR, Ethical ML, data compliance, a modicum of testing, etc., etc., -- a license for a reason more than gatekeeping.
I don't see that happening any time soon.
A building falling is more dangerous than leaking your dev.to password. ML algorithms are amply tested, as failure means loss at scale. Misscheduling is a clerical error which happens more often by humans than software, same with misdiagnosis.
IOT is an opt out system, and after months of Amazon/Google being accused of recording conversations, the insecurities are apparent.
If you do have to deal with PHI testing/licensing is required anyway.
It's true that advancement comes out of academia, but no one cared about GANs until they were deepfakes. Unless it's something specific, large corporations have a stack that's built software from specialized companies (Atlassian, Salesforce, Linux, etc.).
I also think you're entranced by spectacle, the truth is that "Software Architect" and "Software Engineer" are honorific at best. I wouldn't compare this field to civil engineers, rather construction workers -- A mass of general labourers that are more likely doing grunt work than overseeing construction.
The programming language(s) and a majority of architectural decisions are implementation details, while they can increase or decrease the time of a project, they're ephemeral as you'll likely need to update overtime.
TL;DR: Yes, if it mandates good practises; No, because it doesn't matter.
It wasn't too long ago where most programming jobs required some degree, and any important position required at least a masters. It didn't matter, self-taught devs were excelling beyond those with a degree.
If every software development project followed an agreed upon set of standards: l10n, a11y, GDPR, Ethical ML, data compliance, a modicum of testing, etc., etc., -- a license for a reason more than gatekeeping.
I don't see that happening any time soon.
A building falling is more dangerous than leaking your dev.to password. ML algorithms are amply tested, as failure means loss at scale. Misscheduling is a clerical error which happens more often by humans than software, same with misdiagnosis.
IOT is an opt out system, and after months of Amazon/Google being accused of recording conversations, the insecurities are apparent.
If you do have to deal with PHI testing/licensing is required anyway.
It's true that advancement comes out of academia, but no one cared about GANs until they were deepfakes. Unless it's something specific, large corporations have a stack that's built software from specialized companies (Atlassian, Salesforce, Linux, etc.).
I also think you're entranced by spectacle, the truth is that "Software Architect" and "Software Engineer" are honorific at best. I wouldn't compare this field to civil engineers, rather construction workers -- A mass of general labourers that are more likely doing grunt work than overseeing construction.
The programming language(s) and a majority of architectural decisions are implementation details, while they can increase or decrease the time of a project, they're ephemeral as you'll likely need to update overtime.
If I have learned anyting it's never just a POC.
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for sharing your point of view.