Of course. (In my opinion, /high software/ has more in common with mathematics, music, theatre-film-dance, and architecture than it has with engineering, and /low software/ is begining to resemble boiler room operations.)
And to this day, we hear about "software engineers" and "software engineering".
Per my OP: "It seems either your conclusion is held to be incorrect, or, we reach the conclusion that software development is not engineering."
Possibly, one reason for the prevalent problems in the pedagogical & human resource fulfillment aspects of the field is due to a miscategorization of the field.
Process engineering (~manufacturing) and logistics (~supply-chain) are not dissimilar to modern software workflow. The basic tools (modular management of complexity, discrete processing, statistics, monitoring, redundancy in processes/providers, feedback) are equivalent. In fact, I feel like a huge part of a successful software career is learning to see the similarities in disparate fields and draw from them positive architectural benefits, while keeping other-profession-spire-dwellers properly onside/placated.
Well that is certainly correct but it should be pointed out that one can say that about most organized (psuedo-)industrial production endeavors. But it seems incorrect to posit that that is the 'defining' characteristic of software development.
> In fact, I feel like a huge part of a successful software career is learning to see the similarities in disparate fields and draw from them positive architectural benefits, while keeping other-profession-spire-dwellers properly onside/placated.
Fully agreed. In fact that has been my guiding light in my own approach to software development. To clarify my view, I think software, very much like architecture, is a polyglot yet distinct discipline. It is not engineering. It not mathematical logic. It is not process engineering. It is not logistics (provisioning). Etc. (Just like architecture is not civil engineering. It is not philosophy. It is not art. It is not environmental systems engineering. Etc. It is architecture.)
-- p.s. edit --
I would like to bolster my earlier statement that software development has more in common with architecture, theatre, film, etc., than with engineering:
I would like to propose and roughly define a notion of 'semantic gap'. A sort of soft measure of the degree to which the formally expressible definition of a 'production' falls short of permitting the realization of the 'product' without the intervention of the 'designer'.
With that definition in hand, I propose that "engineering" discipines are those creative productions that have minimized the semantic gap to a degree that permits strict divisions of labor in the production.
Where as the "arts" are those creative endeavors that are faced with an intrinsic constraint on the degree to which the semantic gap can be minimized, and, that this maximally reducible semantic gap requires subjective and/or contextual 'interpretation' of the formally expressed design.
I like your semantic gap notion, however I am less convinced that overall mutual comprehension is the issue but rather the different issues of clarity of expression of vision (at the earlier/design stage), or clarity of interface (beginning at the implementation stage).
By way of example, there are many successful artistic projects that utilized the talents of multiple artists in parallel (lots of murals and mosaics, for instance).
In larger scale computing projects, frequently the (mechanics of the) interfaces provide bigger problems than the vision statement or overall goal, whereas in artistic projects indefinable aesthetics may be the shopstopper, despite perfect comprehension and collaboration.
But here, as example is my BSEE a.m.: http://eng.rpi.edu/academics
And to this day, we hear about "software engineers" and "software engineering".
Per my OP: "It seems either your conclusion is held to be incorrect, or, we reach the conclusion that software development is not engineering."
Possibly, one reason for the prevalent problems in the pedagogical & human resource fulfillment aspects of the field is due to a miscategorization of the field.