Very nice post! Congratulations

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but when you say "I am a programmer, not a coder, not a software engineer, not a warm body" it "sounds" to me as though you mean "software engineer" as something "less" than a programmer. Or do you perhaps just mean it's something different, same as a CIO, CTO, architect, lead, designer, PM, BA, President, or GWTFWOSAPT1POFD?

One of the problems our whole industry faces is a lack of definitions. (Or rather, too many, like the old joke about standards.) What exactly do you mean by "software engineer" versus "programmer", and for that matter the others?

Here are my working definitions off the cuff:

Coder: translates detailed specs, usually containing the algorithm (or at least reference to a well-known one), into some particular computer language. Rarely writes tests; but usually manually tests that it works with a few normal inputs. Bottom rung, with little to no independent thought required (or usually even allowed), and little care for code quality. "Code-monkey".

Programmer: translates less-detailed specs, usually consisting of the primary goal(s) and other desired features, into a program, possibly in his choice of language, and usually with his choice of algorithms. Usually performs a design phase on his own. May also design the product as a system of programs cooperating. Usually does not participate in formal testing; may write his own low-level tests (unit, functional, integration), but still usually not. Here we start to see significant independent thought and creativity, and more awareness of "quality" issues.

Software Engineer: Gathers and documents requirements (unless a Requirements Analyst does that), estimates schedule (or at least gives significant input on that to a Project Manager), performs high and low level design, usually (but not always) participates in the actual construction of the software itself. Generates any needed technical documentation (mainly, design docs and possibly test plans, maybe also user docs). Often participates in the architecture (see below). The better ones usually write assorted low-level tests, at least for the code they wrote themselves. May help formal QA/testing team write and run higher-level system/acceptance tests. Lots of independent thought, with others depending on it both up and down the chain of command; much greater responsibility.

Architect: Mainly performs very high level design, aka architecture, often resulting in a system consisting of multiple programs, especially if they run on multiple machines. May also participate in normal HLD and maybe even some extent of LLD. Usually does not participate in the actual construction or testing of the software itself, but may helo the Q/A team figure out what things need to be tested. Often retains "overall vision" responsibility for a product.

Developer: A newer term (I don't go back QUITE as far as you, but further than most of my colleagues), that I would place somewhere between Programmer and Software Engineer.

Tester: obvious.

Analyst: catch-all term for other people somehow involved in the process. Usually more involved in figuring out what the software should do and whether it does it, rather than building it.

Very good post. I agree with a lot of them, based on my experience.

Oh I just meant that I call myself a programmer, which is the first term I learned when I started programming. You're right, the names all all overloaded and confusing and thus I chose one to call myself. :-)

I am a programmer because I build my own solutions to problems. I analyze and re-analyze until I am sure I have started to become fanatic. I de-bug my applications, even when I am not formally part of the testing crew. I am a programmer, because any other job would drive me insane!

Great post! I have not been in the field nearly as long as you (actually I only have 5 years experience), but I can relate to the pride that you show in your work. Good programmers lead to great programs!