Ok, fine, if you gonna be nitpicky, it's a calculation to an electrical engineer.

> To Software Engineering coding is an essential part.

Not really. You can be a Principal Engineer/Architect/Maintainer and do very little coding, but lots of code review and testing.

The point is, if you're just banging out code, then you're a software developer. If you use the engineering design process (research, requirements, design document, feasibility, conceptual design, prototype, detailed design) to solve problems using software, then you're a software engineer.

>Not really. You can be a Principal Engineer/Architect/Maintainer and do very little coding, but lots of code review and testing.

Those are usually software astronauts and dead weight. But of course they think highly of themselves.

I'd take someone who does that and codes a hell of a lot, like Linus or Lattner anyday of the week.

> I'd take someone who does that and codes a hell of a lot, like Linus or Lattner anyday of the week.

Funnily enough, I had Linus in mind as a sort of no-coding Principal Engineer/Architect/Maintainer. He famously said he doesn't code anymore [1].

So I guess he's dead weight by your logic, right?

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Gd9t7FQqI&t=8m54s

>Funnily enough, I had Linus in mind as a sort of no-coding Principal Engineer/Architect/Maintainer. He famously said he doesn't code anymore [1].

That's after he coded his ass out for 20 years. And he's doing reviewing and merging, which is not some lofty "software architect" function, but deals directly with written code.

I've met more Software Architects that coded their asses off for 10+ years than pure-type astronauts. Does that make them real software architects?

If they're Linus level sure. I've met more than enough clueless "have coded sometime in the past but have not touched a PC in 10 years" types promoted to such roles...