I don't like any of the names for people who create technology solutions for use in the real world. In no particular order:

• Developer - Sorry, that's for photographic film (and who uses that anymore?) not software - my second least-favorite on this list.
• Programmer - probably the one I use the most, but the mechanistic connotations: a glorified typist of code; and the implication is that someone else does the thinking, bothers many - leading to...
• Architect - Horrible. Borrowed from physical construction, it brings in notions of rigidity of thinking and solution; my least favorite, often used by those who use 'Developer' to describe "those who do the thinking around here."
• Coder - Probably my favorite; however implies that software is the focus instead of the problem to be solved.
• Hacker - I don't mind this one, but it feels forced sometimes and of course carries negative connotations due to it's use in a security context; It does however, put the problem solving front-and-center and I like that;
• Software Engineer - Part of my current title; pros: sounds professional and captures the applied science nature of the work; cons: again the implication is writing code, not general problem solving and often - though not in my case - is indicative of a very rigid, bureaucratic culture
• Software Craftsman - En Vogue with those who see (as I do) that there is more to this work than just slinging code, I have several problems with it: software focus again, the lack of gender neutrality, and a certain pretentiousness (that might just be because some people sound that way when they talk about the movement - which I am positively disposed to, but not a part of)
• Technologist - This one is popular with the start-up crowd; This is one of the few on this list that recognizes the holistic integrated nature of the work from the solution side; on the other hand, lacks action, professionalism and anything related to the problem (not a coincidence that the startup world likes it, because those that use it are often seeing the project as separating problem and solution too)
• Sys Admin, DBA, network engineer, etc, etc - I.e. every other technology-related role that isn't primarily about writing software. This is my biggest concern of all as I believe this distinction (writing software and everything else) is horribly misguided, artificial and needs to go (that's another entry)

Am I just being pedantic? I'd say yes, except that I believe these terms all devolve from not seeing the holistic nature of solving problems with programmable machines and since I do see it that way, I want a term that encompasses all of it.

Thus Logic Engineer. Physicists have Mechanical Engineers to apply their ideas, why don't Logicians have Logic Engineers? Currently, we conflate this practical science with Computer Science which is also a pure science - or would be if we stopped doing that. I know that Engineer has professional accreditation connotations in many disciplines - and I'm mixed on what that would mean given the current state of technological practice today - but I believe this most closely maps to what we are doing:

Logician: figure out the rules and limits of valid reasoning.

Logic Engineer: figure out the rules and limits of applying logic to real-world problems. We are Logic Engineers.

Further, if we stopped slicing the world up into hardware and software practitioners, and started seeing that software is just liquid hardware (and vice versa); maybe we'd have something worth accrediting (though I don't think for a long while yet).

So, I'm gonna try it for a while... at least in my head.