Comment by nradov
2 years ago
Your analysis doesn't support your claim. Just to point out one basic flaw, real engineering always has to account for financial realities including cash flow as a constraint or optimization parameter.
I don't think you even understand what software engineering is. If we want to limit the discussion to just software development as a craft and take out the engineering aspects then you might have a point, but that's not what the SWEBOK is about.
And in fairness, most real world software projects can produce good enough results without applying real engineering practices. If you're just building yet another CRUD web app then rigorous engineering is hardly required or even economically justified.
While I agree that "real engineering always has to account for financial realities including cash flow as a constraint or optimization parameter" and that, as I said, "Competent engineers (...) have to understand at least the basics of the management context in which they operate," that's no substitute for attempting to replace real engineering with project management in the curriculum, which is what the SWEBOK is attempting to do—as my analysis conclusively shows!
Contrast, for example, MIT's required courses for a degree in mechanical engineering (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41918787 for my thoughts on what a real-engineering curriculum about software would include.