I think articles like this are roundabout arguing something different from their text.
It’s not about how much to half ass our hobby projects that were often halfassed without AI.
Over years professional development has reached many context-dependent equilibriums for the amount of quality to build into various types of software. Professionals are facing downward pressure on that equilibrium point - not just the faster iteration promised by AI.
I'm glad you mentioned downward market pressure on quality. I agree that is an issue. That's why I advocate for licensure of software engineering professionals, which exerts a counteracting force back up.
Software projects are too large to be left to licensed practitioners if you want to ensure quality. It would require the producing company to follow a formal quality management system. Discussing individual licensing is a distraction until that is in place.
That's an interesting argument. In construction, the larger a project, the more justifiable it is to invest in quality. Is it different than software? I think a better argument against licensure is that it makes small projects too expensive, but I disagree. It shifts not the overall cost, but when cost is paid: "The upfront cost will increase, but a long tail of costs stemming from quality issues will decrease."
I worked for 10 years in medical devices. QMS was business as usual. I think large software projects with millions budgeted should have them. But the difference between a QMS and licensure is a person's signature and their personal commitment to a statement of ethics as well as their accountability and ability to appeal to a professional organization.
I think articles like this are roundabout arguing something different from their text.
It’s not about how much to half ass our hobby projects that were often halfassed without AI.
Over years professional development has reached many context-dependent equilibriums for the amount of quality to build into various types of software. Professionals are facing downward pressure on that equilibrium point - not just the faster iteration promised by AI.
I'm glad you mentioned downward market pressure on quality. I agree that is an issue. That's why I advocate for licensure of software engineering professionals, which exerts a counteracting force back up.
https://www.slater.dev/2025/09/its-time-to-license-software-...
Software projects are too large to be left to licensed practitioners if you want to ensure quality. It would require the producing company to follow a formal quality management system. Discussing individual licensing is a distraction until that is in place.
That's an interesting argument. In construction, the larger a project, the more justifiable it is to invest in quality. Is it different than software? I think a better argument against licensure is that it makes small projects too expensive, but I disagree. It shifts not the overall cost, but when cost is paid: "The upfront cost will increase, but a long tail of costs stemming from quality issues will decrease."
I worked for 10 years in medical devices. QMS was business as usual. I think large software projects with millions budgeted should have them. But the difference between a QMS and licensure is a person's signature and their personal commitment to a statement of ethics as well as their accountability and ability to appeal to a professional organization.