The only difference is in the protectionism of the other professions. Most of the barriers you mention are imaginary. Programming errors can have far worse consequences than medicine or law. I've never seen a doctor or lawyer make a rocket ship turn into the ground (Arian V) or oil pipelines explode (buggy versions of pipeline software stolen by Russia) or make airplanes refuse to execute commands ( airbus and apache FCS). They also can't destroy trillions of dollars of wealth (black- sholes and other flawed risk models, high frequency trading)

The examples you gave are edge cases and exceptions -- relatively very rare situations. Most programming work is hum-drum, with errors being no big deal, and easily and cheaply caught and caught early. I was comparing cases "in the main" between these 3 professions. Also, by pointing out the cases that you did, you actually increased the strength of the point I was making: these 3 professions are very different and one cannot reliably draw conclusions based on similarities.

Agree programming has less barriers to entry. But the barriers to entry for doctors and lawyers are not imaginary. They're real. Are they arbitrary and "made up" via government rules? Of course, and perhaps that's what you meant. But they are real. If you willfully ignore or bypass them you will suffer real consequences to your person including fines and imprisonment.

What are you talking about? When you roll a new version of a high volume web app if it has bugs that don't get caught in certain scripts then you can literally cost people hundreds of thousands of dollars before it is fixed.

eg. A trading platform, an advertising platform, etc.

This is not that rare.

Disagree, I think that's rare across the whole spectrum of programming work that's done. The vast majority of websites have perhaps 100's of users at most. The majority of software written has anywhere from 1 user to 10's, sometimes 100's, and more rarely thousands to millions. For every hedge fund trading platform I bet there are 1000's of Bubba's blogs and Joe's file-munging Perl scripts. The latter is the general case, not the former.

Almost every doctor or pharmacist you deal with on a daily basis can say something or do something that, if mistaken, can end up getting you dead or seriously sick -- or at least fail to prevent you from becoming so. A dead website can be fixed and brought back to life. Dead humans cannot. Well, for now anyway! :)

I disagree. Medicine is not that powerful. Doctors don't have that big power over people's lives. And the ones that do have are mostly edge cases, like it is in programming. Most of the doctors just move you around the "system". I can tell you this because I am a doctor myself. And gave up medicine in favor of programming. Medicine is a beauroucratic closed society, that is not willing to accept new members. They have the power and connections to make their profession seem "elite" and "important" and "dangerous". And they impose expensive university education (which is mostly unneeded in order to "do the job"), government regulations and all kinds of other hindrances in order to hide that their profession is just like the rest. From my experience so far, programming is much more difficult (unlike medicine, you need to think all the time), changes much faster, and changes are far more radical. In medicine you don't pick a new speciality every few months/years (like we do with languages). In medicine patients don't get released with new versions (incompatible with former ones), every other month. Doctors' tools (pharmaceuticals) don't change with the speed our tools (libraries, frameworks) change. You don't have to pick different "styles" and "philosophies".

I guess you will now ask me "why the hell did you choose programming then"? Yeah, I could earn more money with less work, with less thinking. But it would be much less enjoyable. And I guess this is the reason why programmers get paid less. We love our job. And we are willing to do it just for the sake of doing (and a little money for living).

Okay, I've just graduated as a vet and I had a bit of a crisis where I was worried: 1) That medical professions remain in their elite positions by using inaccessible language and a closed community 2) That there was a limited range of tools where much clinical work is just remembering someone else's solution to a particular disease and involved little in the way of problem solving and as a consequence something that I thought would be a mentally stimulating career just wasn't. I don't think I would have got into programming had some parts not been fairly dull.

So i finished the course and am looking forward to going into practice. As far as having a closed and (seemingly) elite community goes thats actually not such a big problem. Textbooks are available to anyone. The closed society should just be considered as a quality control. It is possible to get hold of any of the equipment required for medical practice but when you go to a doctor (a member of a profession) you are seeing an individual who has their competence vouched for and is subjective to professional discipline should their service be found to be lacking. I think it is difficult to justify the rates doctors get paid but self regulating professions do at least have quality assurance.

I also agree that there is a lot of university education in terms of what is learnt didactically is unnecessary for most of the day to day job but this totally misses the paint. Even though pharmaceutical tools may be fairly limited our understanding of pathology and epidemiology is continuously expanding fairly rapidly and what it teaches you is to educate yourself rapidly as this information emerges (and particularly in veterinary medicine collate this information sensibly when the information you want is not directly addressed in the literature - something that can only be done with a thorough understanding of physiology, immunology etc). Secondly since this discussion seems to be focusing on edge cases a lot we should not forget emerging diseases since these cannot be properly addressed by someone that is limited to the day to day 'do the job skills'. An excellent example of this is the diagnosis of blue-tongue virus when it first arrived in England.

As for wanting to be in a profession where you have to think all the time, I think it is possible but I think you need some kind of developer spirit. To do this you need to try and get yourself to some kind of cutting edge. This is easier to find with programming because it is a much newer skill set (and with veterinary medicine as compared to human medicine). To this end if you consider specialising and doing clinical research or doing something that involves policy making, or practicing somewhere where resources are fairly limited then I think you can have an intellectually rewarding career. Any career can be as interesting as you make it. If you find yourself bored because you are having to treat the same thing over and over again either change your specialty in medicine (pick a different "style" or "philosophy" [you may see the problems the patient has differently and take a different approach in addressing them]) or go and try address the root cause of the problem. You miss also that what is interesting in programming is that problems that you are faced with also seem to be changing rapidly as do areas of new development. I'm sure new tools would eventually get boring if the problems became static.

I think you're spot on about picking a career that you enjoy. I you've shown as well how important it is to consider where your at regularly and make an effort to keep what yo do interesting. The implication that all programmers love their job is as easy to disprove as other professionals not loving theirs. Providing you have some control on the development of your own skills I think any job can be satisfying. Don't use this love as an excuse for poor pay. Price yourself to show how much your are worth.

I didn't say that I'm not happy with what I get paid. And it wasn't an excuse at all. Just the opposite. I wanted to show why the people saying that "medicine is paid fairly compared to programming" are wrong.

I wanted to debunk the myth saying that medicine is the holy grail of professions. It is not. It's overrated, over-regulated and over-idolized. It's quite like the music industry. And it has to change, but changing it will be much more difficult than changing music industry.

and I don't think everything a doctor or lawyer does is then thoroughly tested.

And if you fail to meet the high barriers to entry for doctors and lawyers, the likelihood that you'll make disastrous errors is pretty high.

For a very long time indeed in America, the majority of medicine was practiced at community clinics by nursing staff. A doctor was consulted only when necessary.

The vast majority of medicine could easily be done by the intelligent layman. Like programming.

The clinic I go to has a staff with two doctors and several nurse practitioners (nurses with special training who are authorized to do some doctor-like things like make diagnoses and prescriptions for low-risk conditions). When I see an NP I am grateful for their presence, as my doctor probably has enough shit to do and can't be bothered by my mild to moderate medical questions.

The proliferation of nurse practitioners and physician assistance may provide something of a release valve to counteract the elitism, scarcity, and costs associated with doctors at least until there is reform within the medical profession itself.

Is it? Or is it something we just believe? Doctors used to think that having paramedics would result in disaster.

I think the vast majority of times one needs to use the services of a doctor could be handled by someone with far less training and certification.

The industry is moving in that direction as well. Nurse practitioners are now the common entry point into the medical system, with doctors reserved for follow-up. Even LPNs are being phased out in favor of medical assistants.

Also non-doctors have a much higher usage rate for expert systems and data entry systems. and their work patterns are usually highly formalized and verified by expert docs.

So in practice , non-doctors might be able to offer better medical treatment , than you average doc.

And if you DO meet the high barriers for entry, the likelihood that you'll make disastrous errors is pretty high. The statistics vary wildly depending on sources, but it is quite possible that iatrogenic and nosocomial diseases cause more deaths per year than auto accidents.