Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Very few domains where software is used now make sense for that level of rigor, in practice.

At least with current levels of available staffing. The vast majority of software is being developed more akin to ‘residential construction’ type levels of investment rather than even ‘commercial construction’ or ‘major engineering projects’.

Which makes sense. Rules of thumb work well enough most of the time, and when it’s actually important (say a structure member, ahem, crypto library) then it makes sense to get it looked at more carefully by someone who more deeply understands what is going on.

Though I don’t think we have a solid idea of what those areas are yet, let alone have codified them. So YOLO.



Great post. Yes when your GC or carpenter needs to remove a wall, they bring in a real structural engineer. These roles exist for software engineering also. Only thing we are missing is a real licensing and governance body.


Well, and some sort of stable target to aim at regarding ‘important’. There is pretty solid consensus in construction that things like foundation design, structural walls/supports, projects over a given size, etc. need engineering sign off.

There is no such consensus I can see right now on the software side, and software projects are also a lot more complex than a typical construction project in ways that are hard to quantify.

How would you even define a licensing test that wouldn’t be obsolete in a year or two even?




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: