What are the key differences between software engineers and programmers?
Tell me more
×
Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for
professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. It's 100% free, no registration required.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
When hiring, we look for a distinction between someone who is going to be able to help us architect our system, define processes, create technical specifications, implement advanced refactoring, etc. and someone who is going to help us complete programming tasks off a checklist. I believe you could call the former a Software Engineer and the latter a Programmer. |
|||||
|
|
It's up to the company really, as I don't think there's a legal framework to enforce a denomination or another, or at least not that I am aware of and this might vary from country to country (for instance, the use of the term "engineer" is actually fairly regulated in France, but there are variants that are allowed for the "abusive" cases). That being said the general trend goes like this:
However, all this is arguable, and as I said, there's no legal requirement that I am aware of in US/UK countries. That being said, in France you can only call yourself an "engineer" if you come from an engineering school (recognized by the Commission des Titres d'Ingenieurs or something like that). You cannot say that you have an "Engineer Degree", but you can say that you have a "Degree in Engineering" if you have studied a discipline that falls under the portemanteau of engineering and technologies. It might be that some countries have a similar distinction, I just don't really know. Back to the software engineer title... Once, one of my teacher told our class - and rightly so - that there's no such thing, as of today, as so-called "software engineering". Because engineering something (be it a building, a vehicle, a piece of hardware...) means you are capable of envisioning its design and all the phases of its production, and to predict with accuracy the resources you will need, and thus the cost of the production. This is true of most "true" engineering disciplines. There are fluctuations, of course (the prices of the materials will vary over time, for instance), but there are very finite theoretical models (for design and planning) and empirical models (for pretty much keeping any of the former within accessible constraints) that allow you to predict the termination date of a project and its resource usage. The major problem with software is that it is not there yet. We want to aim for software engineering, but we're not there yet, really. Because we have a very fluid and dynamic environment, very variable constraints for projects, and still a lack of maturity in retrospect in our processes. Sure we could say we get better at it (highly arguable with hard-data, though), but we've only been at it since the 60s (earlier projects were actually closer to hardware-only computers, thus closer to real engineering, ironically). Whereas we've been building motored vehicles for more than a century, vehicles in general for a few millennias, and building for even more millennias (and have been pretty damn good at it actually in some part of the world, making you feel like we're ridiculous kids playing with our new flashy software toys in comparison). We fail to systematically predict deadlines accurately, we fail to systematically predict costs accurately, we fail to systematically identify and mitigate inherent and external risks efficiently and deterministically. The best we can manage to do is produce good enough guesstimates, and accommodate for some buffer, while trying our best to optimize the processes to reduce cycles and overhead. But see, maybe that's what engineering is. And that's what, when someone talks about a "software engineer", they should think of and aim for. So that seems hardly interchangeable with the simple act of programming routines, or the more advanced act of developing applications. Still, everything is a matter of trends. Lately it's pretty common to have an horizontal dev team where everybody on the team is a Senior Software Developer (yes, capitals, because that makes us feel special, doesn't it?), without real distinction of age (fair enough, in my opinion) and not so much distinction of skills (uh-oh...) and responsibilities (now that can't be good, apart purely for PR buzz). It's also sometimes just a force of habit and specific to an industry's culture and jargon. More positions for embedded software production use titles for software engineers. Mostly because it would probably imply that you will always have to deal to a certain extent with the hardware as well in this field, so you obviously deal with other aspects of the production and of the whole "system" you produce. Not just the bits going nuts inside it. On the other hand of the spectrum, you don't really see the term engineer being used in financial software production positions. It's either because is a mimetic evolution of this industry from one of its predecessors (say, embedded engineering find its roots in automobile engineering, for instance), or because they just want to give more or less credit/weight to a position. And to be sure to loose everybody in the fog, you'll then find other titles mixing both (like "Software Development Engineer" or "Software Engineer in Test"!), and then other ones emphasizing even more crazy bridges with other domains (think of "Software Architect" and how "software architecture" might be a shameless theft of vocabulary). And keep them coming: Release Engineer, Change Development Manager, Build Engineer (that one goes ffaaarrrrrr out there as well). And sometimes just simply "engineer". Hope that helped, though it's not really an answer. Oh, and that means your new company is either trying to lure you in with a new title or that they don't really care about titles, or that you really are going to have a higher-level position. The only way of knowing is to read your job spec, talk to them and eventually give it a shot and judge for yourself. I'd hope it's the latter option and that you're happy with it (and potentially cash more in on it). ;) |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
So there is the "Software Engineer", the "Programmer", and also the "Developer", "Coder" and you can never forget the "SOA expert" These are all marketing terms for people who cannot say something meaningful in their CV, such as their actual role (not just job-title) in previous positions. On job ads, the difference is down to the HR person. Bottom line: every person has his own take on "what makes a good employee-that-works-with-code", and some like to associate such and such skills with such and such titles. What you need to do? Job ads should be descriptive about the required skills, and CVs should explain the candidate's experience details. |
|||
|
|
|
No differences. They are the same thing. Companies, though, may have formal job descriptions using the terms, and then there may be some company-specific meaning to the term. |
|||
|
|
|
Programming is about the code. Software engineering is about the end product. |
|||
|
|
|
That really depends on how the company defines the positions. It may be that as a software engineer you will have more design decision opportunities, whereas as a developer they would give you UML diagrams and you would write the program. But, there is no real set definition so that based on the title will people know what you do, or how experienced you are. When I was an architect/developer, my title was computer scientist, but I would just tell people I was a programmer, as the first two are not easily defined, but most people know what a programmer does. If a title is important to you then accept the new one, as engineer sounds higher than a developer. |
|||
|
|
|
I don't think there is any "official differences", for my experience that could mean:
Also, are also fashion terms that changes... First the term was "programmer", then "software engineer" and now appears to be "developer"... It's better to read the job description or to someone on the specific company |
|||
|
|
|
In some jurisdictions, "Engineer" carries with it the requirement of being a professional engineer, that is having an P. Eng. desigation among one's credentials. However, in other areas there may not be such a difference as I was a "Softwere Design Engineer" working in Washington state some years ago. |
|||
|
|
|
Software Engineers tend to work on systems that are very large taking many man years to develop e.g. 5 to 16 years for instance. Programmers tend to have this stereotype of just coding and nothing else. But it really depends on the organization you work and how HR are marketing the role as explained above. They are essentially the same thing. Just don't get too attached to a title because it is synonymous. |
|||
|
|
|
Software engineers are people who work at companies that call the people who write software for them "software engineers." Programmers are people who work at companies that call the people who write software for them "programmers." There are also developers, or software developers. They are people who work at companies that call the people who write software for them "developers" or "software developers," respectively. |
|||
|
|
|
Software engineer adds to "programming" Requirement analysis, configuration management, change control. Change scope analysis, requirements traceability. Measurement of product (quality, size, defect density). Management of the development process. (Visibility, feedback, risk management) Heck, having a documented development process. Process development and deployment. Using practices (engineering, programming) that have empirically proven results. Writing documentation. It won't kill you, just only write the documents required. Don't specify documents as "deliverables"; The customer needs a manual, so we write one. Mechanical engineers don't write hundreds of pointless documents so why be crazy. If this sounds a bit like "Systems Engineering", The engineering company I work for often described Systems Engineering as like Software Engineering for people who can't program. Systems engineering on it's own is quite a valuable discipline. There are lots of technology-heavy projects with little to no custom software component. Programmer: write software. |
|||
|
|
|
The difference between engineering and programming is, in my view, best explained by observation of two different areas. I don't know how to clearly articulate it otherwise. Consider the culture difference between a "hard" engineering company and a "web 2.0" company. Airplane failures due to software versus social media operational failures due to software. |
|||
|
|
|
The title 'Software Engineer' may imply that the position is partly an analyst role, where the focus is about planning the architecture of software rather than doing the grunt work of programming it. |
|||
|
|
|
The difference? $20k a year. Apart from that you're going to be doing much the same job. |
|||
|
|
