>> "What is your job description? What do call yourself, or tell people you do?"
I tell people "I do computer stuff". Anything else sounds pretentious and stupid eg "Senior software architect", and is usually more information than they really wanted.
"Software Artisan" just sounds ridiculously pretentious.
If I suspect a person has problems with their Windows install or needs a website built "for this great business idea, you'll see, we can split the profits, you just have to design the website!", I tell people I'm a database administrator. This discourages questions.
Otherwise, I generally tell people I'm a code monkey or a web designer.
The worst thing is being known in the family/extended family as "A computer guy" - someone to ask when your crappy Windows XP machine won't boot.
When faced with this tricky situation I usually explain that I last used Windows about 10 years ago and have no clue how to make their Vista/XP thing bearable, and they back down.
Not only this, they often ask you to hunt them a brand-new laptop with 6 gigs of ram, 17" screen, a high-speed quad core cpu (basically the works) for all around $400. I'm exaggerating a bit, but this happens a lot often than I would like.
I also type quite fast too, and I get that amazed glance from my peers or just strangers close-by ... next thing I know I get the typical ... "You know, I have a Windows PC, and I think I caught a virus".
I just answer them "Sorry, that's not my expertise" ... but one of these days I'll just get one of those "I WON'T FIX YOUR COMPUTER" teeshirts, because nothing can suck the life out of you faster.
Hey, don't scoff too hard. When working for a startup, one can quickly go from zero work history to being the most senior person on the team. Nothing wrong with recognizing talent and hard work, even if it's only in name.
I laugh when I see positions advertised with "senior" in the title that are only asking for 3 years experience. Around here, that's normal. Does this happen in other industries?
When non-technical people ask what I do, I say, "I write software."
It's been the most well-received title I've found. "Software Developer" is too technical and euphemistic, and "Programmer" is a little nebulous, and also pretty technical. Most people don't necessarily know what a "program" is.
I think that hearing "I write X" is also a more accessible conversation starter since you aren't saying who you are, but what you do.
I do understand why people avoid "programmer", since it sounds low on the org chart, but replacing it with "senior architectural web consultant" is bad, and suggests that you're embarrassed to be someone who writes code. "Software Developer" is alright, but we're adding letters and a a space between words, and I don't really see why.
Sometimes I think that changing a name over and over shows a bit of insecurity. You know, how lawyers like to introduce themselves as "civil rights lawyers" when in fact they are essentially personal injuries lawyers.
Programmer goes way back. It's a great word, let's use it.
That's what I say too unless I'm in a techie environment in which case I qualify it with "web programmer". Anything more usually sounds pretentious and at the end of the day your title really only matters when you're talking to management about a raise. If your official title is programmer you're getting squat but if your title is Senior Lead Software Architecture Analyst or something like that you'll get a lot.
It is strange that people who work with an entirely logical medium -- software developers -- continually want to pretend they are 'artists', 'craftspeople', 'artisans', 'writers', 'performers' even. It is some kind of delusion. If you design systems by some logical understanding of their component properties, and some experiment where things are incompletely known, then you are doing engineering. And there is nothing wrong with that! It does not mean the job is automatable or predictable -- engineering requires insight, judgement, and creativity.
Artists work with an entirely logical medium as well. There is nothing more logical than the physical properties of color and the geometry of perspective.
If I can see what a person is doing, I don't necessarily care what they call themselves.
However, in my experience, once a person has chosen to accept an overly-important title, their value to the organization is severely diminished.
What seems to happen is that people are first promoted to practical positions, like Manager. But after awhile, upper management figures out that they have too many managers. There's some unwritten rule that seems to prevent the layoff of managers. So they hold onto the over-promoted people; but out of some need to avoid bruising egos, they never suggest demoting them to where they would be the most useful. Instead, the managers are "reassigned", and a fancy new title is born.
But I've seen firsthand the big problem with this. After awhile, there are plenty of projects that require Just Programmers, and they are understaffed. You often have 3 or 4 figureheads (er excuse me, Chief Worldwide Technology Strategist Architect Artisan Leads), who you know possess the knowledge to help you, if they would only accept being Just Programmers. But they won't, because their job is some pointless paper-shuffling thing that keeps them far away from code.
If any of you is ever in a position where your title seems to be the most important part of your job, please do your organization a favor and either accept demotion gracefully or quit.
I do get funny looks from people not familiar with the term, but it's how I feel, and it also keeps me on the right tracks (gigs diverting into technical support or sysadmin or software development that was boring me out of my skull ... were only temporary because I know what I want to be).
When I began writing small programs on my calculator 10 years ago, I claimed myself a programmer. Now that it became my job, I usely say I'm a developer.
But the truth is I've always considered software development as a kind of crafting activity, where you can build something totally cool starting from a blank page using unlimited resources (well, almost).
When I design and write a complex piece of code I like to imagine it being transposed in a different crafting domain, e.g mechanics. Writing your own software is like building your own car. You design the blueprints, you create each part one after the other (the chassis, the engine, the transmission, ...), then you assemble it and you see how far and fast it can ride. I like to see my numerous projects on my computer as as many pieces of (un)finished robots and gadgets in my workshop.
I have always liked "[software] engineer". It is what it says on my degree and visa, it is literally accurate, it isn't overlimiting like "programmer", and it commands a certain modicrum of societal respect.
The full sentence is usually "I'm a software engineer working on the admissions system used in places like $LOCAL_UNIVERSITY." Most people don't need any technical detail, but a bit of showing that your work matters in their world doesn't hurt.
I really don't like using the word "engineer" to describe a programmer, largely because I don't want the engineering accreditation/licensing bodies to start thinking they have a claim on what I do.
Trust me, the engineering institutions wouldn't touch 99% of software with a bargepole.
Software engineering to me has always meant the software part of an engineered system, e.g. the software flying on an airliner or controlling a power station.
There's nothing wrong with being a programmer, it's an honest trade. Certified Java Enterprise Solutions Architects, on the other hand...
Well, the problem is that licensing often morphs into cartel building over time. The ABA and state bar associations are notorious for this, but they're hardly the only ones. Read about how various bar associations have pursued "cease and desist" injunctions against "We The People" (a company that fills out legal forms for a fraction of what a lawyer would charge) for a sense of how far this can go.
If engineers want to include a software component in their licensing of, say, civil engineers, that's fine by me. But it needs to be clear that they are licensing civil engineers who write software as part of their civil engineering work, not software engineers per se. Once they get their hands on software engineering, and discover how lucrative the newly formed cartel (er, profession) can be, you'd be surprised with how broad the scope of work that needs to be licensed can become.
For my local 7/11 or gas station, I 'repair computers'.
For my relatives who are not into software, I am an 'Engineer'.
Working on 'open source enterprise service bus' was the most nebulous thing to explain, even to programmers who were doing SAP implementation or web design.
He has a point. Saying I'm a mathematician never conveys the meaning of what I do. If you practice something long enough it does become an art but getting this sense across to non-practitioners is almost impossible.
" ... but getting this sense across to non-practitioners is almost impossible."
And maybe besides the point. I'm sure there's an art to be a lawyer, for example, but I really don't think anyone wants to hear about "Justice artisans" or some such crap.
It is beside the point of what people are looking for when they ask someone, "What do you do?"
Also, FWIW, it conveys for me not passion, but self-infatuation.
Perhaps it's a matter of what to do when someone asks you a basic question. Simply tell them what you think they want to know, or tell them what you want them to hear.
Give your ego the middle-finger and just call yourself a software developer. It'll make everyone's lives easier.