[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Rick Marshall <rjm@zenucom.com> [2005-01-01 20:46]:
> Alan Gutierrez wrote:
>
> >* Rick Marshall <rjm@zenucom.com> [2005-01-01 19:05]:
> >
> >
> >
> >>the challenge remains to develop and maintain software engineering
> >>and computer science courses that do the same (i know there's lots
> >>out there, i've been through the system) and the incentive for
> >>young prospective software people to undertake them. maybe
> >>professional licencing and liability would be a good idea.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > How do you introduce liability? It's hard enough to trace
> > program faults, let alone liability.
> >
> >
> the lawyers will work that out when they think there's enough money
> involved.
Which is my point. You all keep comparing software to medicine.
Are you aware of the tort reform debate in medicine right now?
> from a liability point of view most engineering firms enjoy some
> protection - at least from competency issues - by employing licensed
> engineers and following published standards for safety, quality, etc.
Fine. An engineer firm has libabilities that need to be met when
they are designing an aircraft.
Less of a liability when they are designing a payroll program
for their engineers.
Less when still when they are designing a web page to tout their
engineer triumphs.
You think XQuery takes a four year degree to operate? How are
you going to deal with me if I practice XQuery without a license?
> don't think i'd like the prospect of defending a liability case without
> the same basic standards.
What is that supposed to mean?
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
|
