Right, if they continue to do things short of code (when required, etc) they'd lose their license. They have to work within the confines of the code, where applicable.

Software engineers will certainly lose their job if they don't ship code to standards set by the company they work for. Someone writing code for an airplane is going to have a different type of standard than someone writing code for video game, however.

Why would it make sense for a government agency to set a code for software? It literally makes no sense as different problems have different requirements.

Left up to private enterprise they will set their standards to the lowest they can get away with to maximize profits and reduce the time to market.

So the makers of Candy Krush should ban heap allocation and dynamic memory allocation and perform rigid static analysis on all the code they ship?

In an ideal world, yes, at least to a certain extent. How many times has the security of entire phones been compromised because of an app?

Obviously software written for use in medical devices and banking systems should be held to a higher standard, but the same can be said for other licensed professions. A plumber installing a fire suppression system in a 50 story high-rise would similarly have their work held to a higher standard than someone setting up a rain barrel for their garden.

Personally I find the quality and vetting process of software designed to be installed on the same device that most people use to manage their online banking and carry on their most intimate conversations (often using said software) to be so low as to be considered criminally negligent by the standards of any other respectably industry.