[Niksko]

Very interesting. Particularly their notion (paraphrasing) that SWEBOK attempts to record generally recognised knowledge in software engineering while excluding knowledge about more specific subdomains of software.

That over-deference towards general knowledge coupled with some sort of tie to a similar Australian effort probably explains why the software engineering degree I began in Australia felt like a total waste of time. I remember SWEBOK being mentioned frequently. I can't say I've gotten terribly much value out of that learning in my career.

[kanbankaren]

I am guessing that you didn't get value out of it probably because you didn't work in avionics, medicine, defense, etc? Those industries where a software fault is unacceptable and has to work for decades.

In some industries like avionics and medical instruments, the programmer might be personally held responsible for any loss of life/injury if it could be proven.

Having read Software Engineering and Formal Methods 25 years ago, I could say that IEEE leans heavily towards SE like it is a profession.

It is not going to be appealing to the crowd of Enterprise developers who use Python, Javascript, Web development etc.

[Jtsummers]

> In some industries like avionics and medical instruments, the programmer might be personally held responsible for any loss of life/injury if it could be proven.

If you aren't a PE, it's hard to hold you personally responsible unless they can show something close to willful, deliberate misbehavior in the development or testing of a system even in avionics. Just being a bad programmer won't be enough to hold you responsible.

[kragen]

The SWEBOK will not reduce the number or severity of software faults; it probably increases both.