<i>Professionalism</i> in software is a weird term. I think this essay would've better been named "On ethics in software engineering".<p>From a purely <i>professional</i> standpoint, we should've long ago settled on a few languages to do our tasks, and focused on exploring how to write and manage decade-long projects in those cases, or at least how to rapidly develop and shift codebases to meet the new year's business needs. We've done neither consistently.<p>We should've come up with some kind of licensing and liability system for work done, similar to the Professional Engineering license that is required for building a bridge or skyscraper. This in turn requires that we should've come up with a common nomenclature for solving business problems--we tried this with design patterns, but in a further fit of snowflakeism this approach was unfairly derided and made fun of by our entire industry, mostly because we let it get out of hand.<p>We should've come up with some kind of way of specifying and defining projects, so that we can give an honest quote ahead of time and give clients a way of explaining what they want built and removing the "oh but I guess that's not what I wanted" entitlement many seem to have because they (rightly) don't respect our professional expertise.<p>We should've long ago bridged the gap between the academic/theoretical practice of computer science and the professional issues of software engineering and the performance issues of computer engineering, but instead we decided that internships and coops (though not always by that name) were the "real way" to learn about software development.<p>We should've done a great many things, but we didn't, and now? Now it's probably too late to turn things back. So, in the mean time, let's make hay while the sun shines, and pass the buck to the next generation of poor hapless bastards.<p>~<p>Oh, and as for the users? I've got a rather unpopular opinion on that:<p>They've accepted, encouraged, and rewarded at every term their own enslavement and disrespect.<p>They've continually decided to ignore how the magic boxes work, decided to embrace the shiny over the functional, and in general cast us as the Morlocks and them as the Eloi.<p>So, we might as well exploit them---they neither notice nor want more.<p>EDIT:<p>And the downvotes, as expected.<p>Until we build software like we build bridges, we shouldn't faff about with <i>professionalism</i>. We need to stop coming up with language-of-the-quarters and code spikes and other stuff. And yes, that means that things aren't magic and fun and whatever, and that means that things aren't interesting, and that means that maybe we don't use the exact best tool for the job, but <i>that's practical engineering</i>. It's boring as hell but dependable and conservative.<p>Until our users realize that "hey, maybe I shouldn't spew all of my personal data to complete randos on the internets", they don't deserve to be treated as anything other than a monetizable resource. Until app users are willing to pay more than a buck for their mobile app, we should avoid helping them and instead maximize our revenue. <i>They</i> don't respect <i>us</i>.<p>Look, there are edge cases in certain types of bespoke software work, certain good clients and customers that are informed and intelligent, but the most of the sixth of the world that is on, say, Facebook, can neither imagine nor articulate the freedoms they forfeit (for themselves <i>and others!</i>) every day.