In this paper we will discuss the changing role of a software engineer. We will examine this from four major standpoints, the software development lifecycle, the influence of open source software, testing and deployment and the emergence of new technologies. We will first analyze what the role of a software engineer was in the past. We will examine limitations associated with software development life cycle models, and software failures that catalyzed increased importance for quality assurance. We then outline the current role of a software engineer. We discuss the impact of agile software development and automation on the software development cycle, the influence of open source software and how new technologies such as Function-as-a-Service and machine learning may impacted the role. Based on our research, we analyze why the software engineer role has changed and postulate prospective changes to the role of software engineer, and in particular how new responsibilities may affect the day to day work of future software engineers. We ultimately find that the role of a "software engineer" is nowadays widely varied and very broad, and it only generally indicates the type of work that the software engineer may undertake.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. This content downloaded from 130.179.16.201 on Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:07:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions | THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCES 70 | THE JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCESTo achieve sufficient employment, structural programs are needed in addition to increased demand. This is what the programs of the Office of Economic Opportunity are all about-to increase low capabilities, to improve education, to change slum environments. But, in turn, none of these programs will do any good, unless they are wed to increased aggregate demand. No change of the structure of the society of poverty or of the capabilities of the poor will do any good, unless demand is brought to a level where jobs exist for people hopeful of getting jobs. If capable job-holders are produced without equal production of jobs, we can be in trouble indeed. Thus, in the final analysis, aggregate demand is necessary to support structural change, while structural change is necessary to bring people into a world where aggregate demand makes a difference. Or to put it another way, it is not aggregate demand or structural improvement, but rather the proper blend between the two, that we seek.