In the case of software engineering, a piece of software (or a software-intensive system) can therefore be considered an engineering work if both of the following conditions are true:

• The development of the software required “the application of a systematic, disciplined, quantifiable approach to the development, operation, and maintenance of software.”

• There is a reasonable expectation that failure or inappropriate functioning of the system would result in harm to life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare, or the natural environment.

That does seem to me well defined. If you disagree then it’s okay.

Edit: taken from this: https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/public-policy/professional-practice-software-engineering-en.pdf which also add context.

I cannot speak about electronics as my education was in software engineering.

[–] macaroni1556@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Not so much well defined as fancy words. There is no example of a paying software development job that has no economic impact if the software were to fail.

If I ran a small shopify page for goat feed, I'd be an engineer for making sure the site stayed working so farmers could order their feed. It could even put lives at risk!

It really only excludes someone privately working on a video game for fun.

So given that, what are they actually regulating? What are they providing to their members to help them become better "software engineers". I say it's nothing at all? +