>I don't think this discussion is being fruitful to me. I hear personal attacks instead of counterarguments to the ideas I presented. So, I won't be replying further.

Apologies for you thinking this it's not my intention to personally attack you, in fact I didn't. I think you're just perceiving it this way because my language is very to the point.

Saying you're misguided when you actually are is not an insult btw. It's not your fault or some kind of attribution to your intelligence when I say so. It's simply you are misinformed. Likely you are also very young.

Either way... I myself am a more logical person so "personal attacks" don't effect me if the possibility of new knowledge being imparted to me is greater than zero. This is the logical way of perceiving things. You obviously are less logical so your reasoning can be forgiven.

>So what? The reason could as well be market dynamics. By the same reasoning we could also argue that software engineering is the hardest, because it is the highest paid one.

lol market dynamics. No the reason is because it's harder. There's only two companies in the world that can build passenger airliners. There is tons of room for more competition. The duopoly is held because very few companies can build these things to the scale and speed as boeing or airbus. China is making a huge endeavor to gain these skills and after several decades their planes are still not ready for mass production. See below for evidence:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3R1xQzs3E

This isn't the only example. Let's go with semiconductor manufacturing. Currently there's a shortage of computer chips. The "MARKET DYNAMICS" demands for tons and tons of companies to fill the space... but guess what? China and the US don't have the knowledge or the know how to fill the gap. TSMC and ASML two companies from Asia and Europe respectfully are just a few companies out of a handful that can do build chips at the 5nm process. Intel is still behind.

Meanwhile no company on the face of the earth has a monopoly on "software engineering." Why? because it's easy. Anybody can do it.

Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering#Tasks_in_...

There's zero science, axiomatic proofs or empirical evidence that is part of the definition. It's all just "planning" guidelines masquerading as some kind of mathematical formalism. It's not. It's just a made up series of steps for creating software. I can easily make the same set of formal rules for company bylaws or planning some event.

>Software engineering is not programming, just like aerospace engineering is not assembling a plane.

Software engineering? You mean agile? lol. or simple stuff like unit testing? Even agile isn't part of any theory. and best practices like testing are easy. These are just made up formal rules that we "think" work. Let me be honest with you, if engineering practices from software were applied to other forms of engineering you would be laughed at. Also people would begin dying if agile was used to hack on features onto an airplane. See the boeing 737.

>Let me rewrite that: A software engineer can't even engineer a Google out of university; it's that hard.

You realize google doesn't care what university you went to or even if you went?

https://analyticsindiamag.com/why-google-believes-you-dont-n...

Google is built and maintained by many people who never went to university. Additionally do you know about the founder of duckduckgo another company centered around a search engine? You know what "engineering" knowledge he used to create duckduckgo? None. He got a physics degree from MIT. Learned programming by himself. Likely didn't read a single book on "software engineering"