Not to nitpick but I think the title of engineer is being abused quite a bit by software folks. I'm a software developer and would never consider myself an engineer. We build things, great. But one has to be professionally licensed by an accreditation board. While the other just has to have a few successful projects under their belt.<p>One of my friends just got his PE license. 7 frikkin' years after we both graduated. Could you imagine if it took 7 years before you were legally allowed to run your own company? (I believe 7 years is the average amount of time to get a PE). Anyone calling themselves an engineer without that little piece of sheepskin might as well call themself an MD without the years of med school.<p>But this is America (assuming the majority of HN subscribers) so call yourself whatever you would like.
I hate this type of article.<p>"Here is a distinction I just made up. We'll make it sound somewhat reasonable, put all of the positive characteristics on this side, the negative on that, and now which do <i>YOU</i> want to be?"<p>What if I think your distinction is half-baked and your description is somewhere between useless and wrong? Sorry, but I'm not buying into your world view today. There are a lot of variations of "darned good programmer" out there, and your oversimplification didn't even begin to capture what is involved.
Sounds like the No true Scotsman fallacy.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman</a>