* Re: Any research putting c above ada? @ 1997-05-15 0:00 Jon S Anthony 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? T Wheeley 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.970514190923.17085C-100000@tower.york.ac.uk> T Wheeley <tw104@york.ac.uk> writes: > On 2 May 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote: > > > In article <3369FCAF.41C6@cca.rockwell.com> Roy Grimm <ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com> writes: > > > > > "We're teaching Computer Science here. If you want engineering, go to > > > an engineering school." That's the prevailing attitude with many of the > > > CompSci programs at small liberal arts colleges. They teach the > > > "science" of programming almost as a subfield of Mathematics. The > > > > This is actually very apropos to the problem. Most of what passes as > > so called "computer science" is just watered down mathematics - > > discrete mathematics (asymptotic algorithm analysis is fundamentally > > various techniques of counting, i.e., a bit of combinatorics) and some > > bits of formal logics (which is where the oft mentioned "halting > > problem" and such comes from.) Take this away and you don't have much > > left - unless you have the _application_ of that mathematics, i.e., > > software engineering. > > > > Well, there is the AI camp, but there too, if you look at what much of > > this is, it's being/been covered by philosophers and CogScis (and > > often with rather more perspicacity). > > Well then let's not bother teaching computer science at all! Why not just Sounds like a good idea to me. > make people do Maths + Philosophy degrees. Yes it's the same stuff, but > don't Physics and Chemistry both cover atoms and electron shells? Don't > both Biology and Chemistry cover Biological Chemistry? Incorrect analogies. These are all sciences which have their own core subject which is well delineated. The fact that they borrow from ideas in other related sciences is irrelevant. The point is that CS has no such core subject area - _all_ it has is borrowed and then watered down from other disciplines. > The fact is that a CS degree combines all these factors into a single > degree related to the study of computers, and puts them in the correct > context. This would be the start of something that made sense if the core subject was _engineering software artifacts_. > Yes the idea of dominance in sequences is part of computer science, > but they way I was taught it in maths is not particularly relvant to > the complexity of algorithms. This sounds irrelevant. _Counting_ is the core of complexity analysis and that is a part of Combinatorics. _Applying_ the various relevant results of Combinatorics to _engineering_ problems in software is perfectly sensible. Attempting to dream up new ways of counting or more sophisticated ways, or ways that handle new situations or whatever is Combinatorics - not CS. > Unless you have a very good understanding of the principles behind > the maths in a maths degree, it will take you a lot of experience to > become a good programmer (e.g. Knuth) I seriously doubt this (as it is written). As an example, exactly how does understanding the ideas behind the proof of Quadratic Reciprocity help you in "programming"?? How does an understanding of the topology of the linear continuum needed to understand a proof of the FTC help you in "programming"? As far as that goes, how does a understanding of the notions underlying FTC help? Schroder-Bernstein theorem? No other engineering discipline needs this sort of understanding. Heck, no other _science_ needs this level of understanding. > Of course there is a strong element of theory in CS degrees -- they want > to get good research students to boost the department's standing against > other universities, but you would have to have a poor department or be a > poor student if you didn't pick up some of the fundamentals of good > software design. I think you just crossed over into Jay Martin flamage land - prepare to be blow torched! :-) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-15 0:00 Any research putting c above ada? Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony ` (2 more replies) 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? T Wheeley 1 sibling, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <JSA.97May14201336@alexandria>, Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote: >> Well then let's not bother teaching computer science at all! Why not just > >Sounds like a good idea to me. Yeah, why don't we just burn those computer science texts, too! We can start with that _Introduction to Algorithms_, by Cormen, Leiserson and Rivest and thrown in some Knuth and Sedgewick for good measure. >This would be the start of something that made sense if the core >subject was _engineering software artifacts_. This anti-intellectual claptrap romanticizing is getting rather tiresome. Heck, I propose that we do away with learning all together. We should instead hold retreats in the woods to get in touch with those engineers inside of us that are just yearning to be set free! Only then will we develop better software, in the most natural way. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc6189$b074f500$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Les Hazlewood 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5le6vf$15p@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote: > >> Well then let's not bother teaching computer science at all! Why not just > > > >Sounds like a good idea to me. > > Yeah, why don't we just burn those computer science texts, too! OK, :-) > >This would be the start of something that made sense if the core > >subject was _engineering software artifacts_. > > This anti-intellectual claptrap romanticizing is getting rather tiresome. I'm unclear on why you think this is "anti-intellectual". It's simply getting your tasks better and more clearly organized. So what if there is no "science" per se' associated with computers? Why should this bother you? Why is this a big issue? And why is engineering somehow "anti-intellectual"??? You think you can just go touchy-feely when engineering an aircraft wing? Or the combustion chamber head in an ICE?? Or a throttlable rocket engine???? or ... Come on - your credibility just dropped to zero. > Heck, I propose that we do away with learning all together. We Well this is very odd. I think it is pretty clear that I have a high belief in the value of learning and apprpriate and highly rigorous and formal disciplines. For crying out loud - my formal background is in theoretical mathematics. I've merely pointed out that CS is largely redundant (at best) with several other disciplines. > should instead hold retreats in the woods to get in touch with those > engineers inside of us that are just yearning to be set free! Only > then will we develop better software, in the most natural way. Very interesting. This really does seem to indicate that you don't think engineering disciplines have any value. That they are all just a bunch of "new age" touchy feely rubbish. And if CS became an engineering discipline it would apparently become: Anti-intellectual A hodge-podge of simple minded, non-formal, non-rigorous rubbish A place for artsy-fartsy types. Wow. Definitely odd... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bc6189$b074f500$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>]
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? [not found] ` <01bc6189$b074f500$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> @ 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bc6189$b074f500$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>, Nick Roberts <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > > >Kaz Kylheku <kaz@vision.crest.nt.com> wrote in article ><5le6vf$15p@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>... >[...] >> Heck, I propose that we do away with learning all together. We should >instead >> hold retreats in the woods to get in touch with those engineers inside of >us >> that are just yearning to be set free! Only then will we develop better >> software, in the most natural way. > > >Kaz, this approach may well produce crap software, but it sounds like a lot >of fun for the programmers :-) I don't know what I was ranting about. It was sort of my sarcastic reaction to all this ``computer science bad, experience good'' business. My point is that in other engineering fields (if SW engineering can indeed be considered one) practitioners do not denigrate the theoretical underpinnings. Computer science is a good thing, even if the pure theoretical foundations don't teach you how to construct software. I believe that CS programs should stand on their own. A good CS education offers things that are not quite covered in engineering or mathematics programs, even though there are sometimes significant overlaps. At my alma mater, there was an interesting situation: some of the upper division computer science courses had precise electrical engineering counterparts. If a student somehow took both counterparts, credit would have been awarded for just one, and either one counted as an equivalent prerequisite to other courses or for graduation requirements. Among these courses were intro to operating systems, computer graphics and computer architectures. The consensus among the students was that the CS versions of these courses were far more challenging and interesting, with better lecturers. As a result, we had quite a few engineers in these classes. A lot of CS subject matter just doesn't fit into engineering or mathematics, though it could fit if the school of engineering had a specific deparment for software engineering. Should an engineering school teach compiler construction, distributed systems or artificial intelligence courses? Should a mathematics department? There are schools which have folded computer science and engineering departments together, and it does seem to work. >Then again, maybe Microsoft got there first? :) >Nick. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-18 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-05-19 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Michael Norrish 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5li53d$irf@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > I don't know what I was ranting about. It was sort of my sarcastic > reaction to all this ``computer science bad, experience good'' > business. My point is that in other engineering fields (if SW > engineering can indeed be considered one) practitioners do not > denigrate the theoretical underpinnings. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. In fact, if anything, that is sort of the point. It is not at all about "theoretical stuff is 'bad'" (whatever that might mean), it's that the "theory" is CS is basically redundant with other disciplines, but in large measure, CS as a discipline stresses this theory. So, CS - as currently constituted - is largely irrelevant redundancy. If it were reorganized as focusing for the most part on the discipline of engineering software artifacts (systems, components, whatever), then basically noone would/could have much of anything negative to say in this context. > I believe that CS programs should stand on their own. A good CS education > offers things that are not quite covered in engineering or mathematics > programs, even though there are sometimes significant overlaps. Well, the point is, the parts that aren't in mathematics (or cogsci or philosophy or...) are engineering aspects centered on a new _kind_ of engineering. So, just make the thing an engineering discipline and let the theoretical stuff stay where it naturally belongs. And just _use_ the results. If you are really interested in these aspects - go be a mathematician, ... > to other courses or for graduation requirements. Among these courses > were intro to operating systems, computer graphics and computer > architectures. The consensus among the students was that the CS > versions of these courses were far more challenging and interesting, > with better lecturers. As a result, we had quite a few engineers in > these classes. This all sounds like engineering to me. > A lot of CS subject matter just doesn't fit into engineering or > mathematics, though it could fit if the school of engineering had a > specific deparment for software engineering. OK - such as? > Should an engineering school teach compiler construction, > distributed systems Well of course they should - when CS migrates to SE. That's what this stuff is. > or artificial intelligence courses? No - and neither should CS. This is Neuro Science, CogSci and Philosophy. What makes you think CS has anything to offer here??? >Should a mathematics department? Of course not. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-18 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-05-19 0:00 ` NOT about "c above ada" W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-05-19 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Michael Norrish 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I note that this thread is in the C, C++, and Ada language newsgroups. I think it's a very interesting discussion, and I'd like to make a contribution, but is there another newsgroup more suitable? It's not really a language topic. Nick. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* NOT about "c above ada" 1997-05-18 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-19 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) @ 1997-05-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts wrote: > I note that this thread is in the C, C++, and Ada language newsgroups. I > think it's a very interesting discussion, and I'd like to make a > contribution, but is there another newsgroup more suitable? It's not really > a language topic. For that matter, several somebodies should have edited their subject lines about a week ago... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-18 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-19 0:00 ` Michael Norrish 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Michael Norrish @ 1997-05-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > It is not at all about "theoretical stuff is 'bad'" (whatever that > might mean), it's that the "theory" is CS is basically redundant > with other disciplines, but in large measure, CS as a discipline > stresses this theory. So, CS - as currently constituted - is > largely irrelevant redundancy. This is simply not true. However one wants to value theoretical computer science as to usefulness, there are parts of it that simply do not get done elsewhere. Who else except computer scientists care about compiler construction and the attached theory of language parsing? Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in computer science? There's plenty of theoretical work out there, that is NOT just maths, or just engineering. My own work is theoretical (a formal model of C), and is not something I could do anywhere except in a computer science setting. > Well, the point is, the parts that aren't in mathematics (or cogsci > or philosophy or...) are engineering aspects centered on a new > _kind_ of engineering. So, just make the thing an engineering > discipline and let the theoretical stuff stay where it naturally > belongs. And just _use_ the results. If you are really interested > in these aspects - go be a mathematician, ... Maths departments tend not to be interested in semantics (denotational, operational &c), in programming language design, the theory of objects... As a theoretical computer scientist, I am sure that there is no better name for what my peers do. Michael. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-19 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Michael Norrish @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Michael Norrish 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <yvsaflrrfka.fsf@albatross.cl.cam.ac.uk> Michael Norrish <mn200@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes: > jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > > > It is not at all about "theoretical stuff is 'bad'" (whatever that > > might mean), it's that the "theory" is CS is basically redundant > > with other disciplines, but in large measure, CS as a discipline > > stresses this theory. So, CS - as currently constituted - is > > largely irrelevant redundancy. > > This is simply not true. However one wants to value theoretical Shrug - IMO, it is true. > computer science as to usefulness, there are parts of it that simply > do not get done elsewhere. Who else except computer scientists care > about compiler construction That falls under engineering. > and the attached theory of language > parsing? Linguists, mathematicians (formal languages), and philosophers. Where do you think this stuff came from? The standard "language hierarchy" used as the basis for recognizers is from Chomsky - a linguist, not a CSer. > Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP > and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in > computer science? Engineering again. Other than how this works in actual software systems, who cares? > There's plenty of theoretical work out there, that > is NOT just maths, or just engineering. Maybe - haven't seen it yet... > My own work is theoretical (a formal model of C), and is not something > I could do anywhere except in a computer science setting. Maybe, but I suppose that's because a formal model of C is completely uninteresting outside the context of how it can/should/was intended (or not) to be used to write programs. But in reality, this sort of thing is done by linguists (models of languages...) > As a theoretical computer scientist, I am sure that there is no better > name for what my peers do. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Michael Norrish 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <JSA.97May19211413@alexandria>, Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote: >> computer science as to usefulness, there are parts of it that simply >> do not get done elsewhere. Who else except computer scientists care >> about compiler construction > >That falls under engineering. In your opinion. There are schools that incorporate computer science programs entirely into their engineering faculty. Others don't do this. But compiler construction is still compiler construction. I'd hate to see people have to enrol into engineering faculties if they are really interested in computer science. >> and the attached theory of language >> parsing? > >Linguists, mathematicians (formal languages), and philosophers. Where In general, these people don't particularly care for constructing programming language compilers, however. >do you think this stuff came from? The standard "language hierarchy" >used as the basis for recognizers is from Chomsky - a linguist, not a >CSer. You could easily say that Chomsky has a good deal of a computer scientist in him. >> Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP >> and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in >> computer science? > >Engineering again. Other than how this works in actual software >systems, who cares? Most engineering professors (at least the types I have known) would butcher and operating systems course. I went to a school where certain upper level CS courses had precise counterparts in Engineering. The engineering versions of these courses were so poor that smart engineering students signed up for the CS versions. ``other than how this works in actual systems'' --- typical engineering attitude. To heck with abstraction, where is the iron? >> My own work is theoretical (a formal model of C), and is not something >> I could do anywhere except in a computer science setting. > >Maybe, but I suppose that's because a formal model of C is completely >uninteresting outside the context of how it can/should/was intended A formal model of C might be of value to engineers who wish to more-less formally verify the semantics (and hence the correctness) of programs written in that language. >(or not) to be used to write programs. But in reality, this sort of >thing is done by linguists (models of languages...) Uh, yeah, whatever. I can just see some artsie linguist formalizing the C language! If there is such a linguist, I'd like to be introduced to him or her. To begin with, linguists tend to scoff at artificial languages of any sort. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5lrbnv$iaj@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote: > >> computer science as to usefulness, there are parts of it that simply > >> do not get done elsewhere. Who else except computer scientists care > >> about compiler construction > > > >That falls under engineering. > > In your opinion. There are schools that incorporate computer science Absolutely. All of this is just "opinion". > >Linguists, mathematicians (formal languages), and philosophers. Where > > In general, these people don't particularly care for constructing programming > language compilers, however. Absolutely. That is where the _application_ of this stuff comes in, i.e., software engineering dealing with computerized automated recognition of formal languages. > >do you think this stuff came from? The standard "language hierarchy" > >used as the basis for recognizers is from Chomsky - a linguist, not a > >CSer. > > You could easily say that Chomsky has a good deal of a computer scientist > in him. Well, you can always try to play Humpty Dumpty. But, you have to realize that it just confuses things. > >> Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP > >> and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in > >> computer science? > > > >Engineering again. Other than how this works in actual software > >systems, who cares? > > Most engineering professors (at least the types I have known) would butcher > and operating systems course. I went to a school where certain upper level Not if they were _software_ engineering professors. I am not saying that you should have EE profs or something doing this. I am suggesting that there be a real (new) software engineering discipline formed which would basically absorb what is now CS and ensure it has the proper engineering bent that (IMO) it should have. > ``other than how this works in actual systems'' --- typical engineering > attitude. To heck with abstraction, where is the iron? Well, sure - for EEs and CEs and such. But that's not what I'm talking about. > Uh, yeah, whatever. I can just see some artsie linguist formalizing > the C language! If there is such a linguist, I'd like to be > introduced to him or her. Wow. Have you ever looked into formal linguistics? > To begin with, linguists tend to scoff at artificial languages of > any sort. Really? Where'd you get this from? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Michael Norrish 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Michael Norrish @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > > Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP > > and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in > > computer science? > Engineering again. Other than how this works in actual software > systems, who cares? Theoretical computer scientists, that's who. Show me an engineering department that cares in the slightest about the pi calculus. I, on the other hand can show you an entire research group at the Computer Lab here that does. At a stretch you could call some of this stuff mathematics (it's abstract in the way that much of maths is abstract), but when push comes to shove, mathematicians don't do it; they're not interested. Theoretical computer science is perhaps even a branch of mathematics, but that doesn't mean maths departments do it. Michael. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Michael Norrish @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <yvsd8qm4isl.fsf@merganser.cl.cam.ac.uk> Michael Norrish <mn200@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes: > jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > > > > Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP > > > and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in > > > computer science? > > > Engineering again. Other than how this works in actual software > > systems, who cares? > > Theoretical computer scientists, that's who. Show me an engineering > department that cares in the slightest about the pi calculus. I, on Well, if they had a widely recognized software engineering discipline, then this would not be an issue. I'm not saying you can just drop CS and not replace it with something and then try to get the relevant bits and bobs from EEs and CEs and such. > Theoretical computer science is perhaps even a branch of mathematics, > but that doesn't mean maths departments do it. Well, yes, this is similar to what I've said. A chunk of so called CS is really some bit of mathematics. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Michael Norrish 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <yvsd8qm4isl.fsf@merganser.cl.cam.ac.uk>, Michael Norrish <mn200@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > >> > Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP >> > and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in >> > computer science? > >> Engineering again. Other than how this works in actual software >> systems, who cares? > >Theoretical computer scientists, that's who. Show me an engineering >department that cares in the slightest about the pi calculus. I, on >the other hand can show you an entire research group at the Computer >Lab here that does. > >At a stretch you could call some of this stuff mathematics (it's >abstract in the way that much of maths is abstract), but when push >comes to shove, mathematicians don't do it; they're not interested. >Theoretical computer science is perhaps even a branch of mathematics, >but that doesn't mean maths departments do it. I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. Developing a correct program is much more akin to theorem proving than engineering activity. There are enough superficial similarities to make the two seem the same from a project management perspective. Both the ``software engineer'' and the real engineer have to have some creativity, both have requirements and deadlines, both work in teams, both assemble systems out of more elementary components many of which are designed and built by others and so forth. Their fundamental activities are miles apart, however. Software engineering merely means the application of the same levels of rigor to software design that engineers apply to the design of electrical, mechanical or structural systems, and the same standards of quality, accountability and so forth. From this it does not follow that we should absorb computer science into engineering. Phooey! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5lsjb3$bqc@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. Right _now_ I'd say that SE is kind of a "hoax". But that's because no one's actually tried to define it in a rigorous way analogous to the activity in other engieering disciplines. > Developing a correct program is much more akin to theorem proving > than engineering activity. Well, here you are really climbing out on a (weak) limb. The "micro level" aspect of programming is somewhat related to theorem proving: stuff like what Gries presents in _The Science of Programming_. And this is important stuff basic stuff. Kind of like how an aeronautical engineer needs to know about fluid dynamics and such. Or how an EE needs to know (at a kind of cookbook level) basic QM stuff. But as everyone knows, this is just the starting point for any _realization_ of such "micro level" pieces. And it does not have much to say about how these pieces can be fit together into a whole which will function, perform and be useable at the proper levels in the real world context they are to live in. > There are enough superficial similarities to make the two seem the > same from a project management perspective. Both the ``software > engineer'' and the real engineer have to have some creativity, both > have requirements and deadlines, both work in teams, both assemble > systems out of more elementary components many of which are designed > and built by others and so forth. You missed the true heart of the stuff: real engineers use an application of science and mathematics to derive first level _ideal_ approximations of the desired end result. Then you have to face reality, as it were, and then try to get a _real_ result which comes in reasonably close to the ideal and which is actually _useable_ in the desired context. This is kind of like a sophisticated constraint based reasoning and experimentation effort. The point is: software artifacts (applications, components, whatever) have to live in the real world just like hardware artifacts (engines, wings, ICs, whatever). And there is as much of difference in _kind_ between ideals in software construction as ideals in real engineering. And this major fact is what seems to be lost on most software people. > Their fundamental activities are miles apart, however. Software > engineering merely means the application of the same levels of rigor > to software design that engineers apply to the design of electrical, > mechanical or structural systems, and the same standards of quality, > accountability and so forth. IMO, this is a) a very odd idea of what SE should be and b) one that is probably shared by most software people. > From this it does not follow that we should absorb computer science > into engineering. Phooey! This is rather telling. Why is there such an emotional reaction to this??? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <JSA.97May20172344@alexandria>, Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote: >The point is: software artifacts (applications, components, whatever) >have to live in the real world just like hardware artifacts (engines, >wings, ICs, whatever). And there is as much of difference in _kind_ >between ideals in software construction as ideals in real engineering. >And this major fact is what seems to be lost on most software people. What are the ideals in software construction? I don't see it. I understand what an ideal fluid or gas may be, or what an idealized structural member is like and so forth. What is the idealized stuff in software? Reams of textbook pseudo-code? >> From this it does not follow that we should absorb computer science >> into engineering. Phooey! > >This is rather telling. Why is there such an emotional reaction to >this??? Because in my personal experience, engineering courses were ``sleepers'' the passage of which was based primarily on examsmanship whereas computer science courses were mostly stimulating and exciting (okay, there were some sleepers too, naturally; but even the sleepers had half decent assignments and projects). Which is no more or less valid than any other claims based on background experience that I have seen in this thread. We've seen, for instance, complaints from those who went after the prestige of ivy league computer science for whatever reasons, and then realized that they didn't learn software engineering. To that I say: what did you expect? Vocational training at an institution for privileged children? Of what practical use are software engineering skills to someone who can afford to go these schools? I sure as heck couldn't have coughed up $25K+ per year to go to school, I had to work to get by. When I graduated, I didn't go on a world tour; I found a programming job within two or three weeks. I'd like to say that _at the university where I completed my studies_, the recommendations you are making would probably not be a good idea, even though there is a great deal of synergy between engineering and CS, particularly EE. Every school is unique. Some CS departments could use a swift kick in the pants, others perhaps not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Robert I. Eachus 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-05-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote: >I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. Or as some would say "a myth and a scam". :-) >Developing a correct program is much more akin to theorem proving than >engineering activity. I don't agree at all. The metaphor I use for programming is construction. You literally build a program. I am working on a simulation of a lottery terminal that will have the same sort of interface (keyboard, screen layout) so you can learn to use the terminal with your PC. It will even have a mode where it can play customer and ask you for tickets. Anyway, right now it doesn't do much. The keyboard is all layed out, but there is only one game and a few reports implemented. When you hit a key that hasn't been "wired up yet" it will say "Game not active" or "Report not available". The goal is to have a compilable version at all times. You start with the framework and add functionality as you go. It works from just about the start, and you flesh it out by adding new games and reports and other various whatnots to it. To me, this seems like constructing the frame of a house and adding the interior as you go. Checking the program for correctness consists of critically reading the code, stepping through it in the debugger, and, yes, actually running it to see how badly it screws up. None of this seems like theorem proving. I don't know how to prove that the program is correct other than reading the source very critically and testing the heck out of it with various aids. When it performs correctly it is ready. "Getting into states where it's behavour is undefined" (my favorite software euphemism) means there is work to be done. The correctness is demonstrated by its behavour; there could *always* be a bug lurking. Sitting down and reading several thousand lines of code and then "proving" it is correct is quite a bit to do. Some things become so complex that the only way to test them is to simulate them, which is another way of saying "build it and see what it does". >There are enough superficial similarities to make the two >seem the same from a project management perspective. Both the ``software >engineer'' and the real engineer have to have some creativity, both have >requirements and deadlines, both work in teams, both assemble systems out of >more elementary components many of which are designed and built by others and >so forth. I don't think that is superficial. At some fundamental level you are doing the same thing. >Their fundamental activities are miles apart, however. Software engineering >merely means the application of the same levels of rigor to software design >that engineers apply to the design of electrical, mechanical or structural >systems, and the same standards of quality, accountability and so forth. That is true, but even an incompetent programmer blundering his way through the construction of a program is constructing something; how well it is engineered is another question (I think this is your point). >From this it does not follow that we should absorb computer science into >engineering. Phooey! Well, I don't think it belongs in the hard sciences either! I think if you grasp how much software and hardware have to interact, there would be some justification for creating an interdisciplinary field. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts ` (3 more replies) 2 siblings, 4 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5lsjb3$bqc@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. Huh? > Developing a correct program is much more akin to theorem proving than > engineering activity... Ah, programming is not software engineering. Software engineering is all that other stuff which successful projects do that results in projects being successful. We had an interesting case a few weeks ago here. A project manager wanted to know if switching from X to Y at this point in the project made sense. (X and Y here are irrelevant to the discussion.) He ended up talking to five people who really are software engineers. The first person gave him a lot of advice that basically amounted to do NOTHING to change the specifications for build one, but start a small scoping activity to make sure that all functions of the current system are scheduled for build two, and anything else that can be moved to build three, is. Then once build two is complete come back and discuss X vs. Y. The project manager thought that this was good advice, but didn't really answer his X vs. Y question, so he called someone else. Got the same answer. Tried a third person, got the same answer, called me. I went over to his office, looked at his schedule charts, and gave the same answer. At this point he was suspecting a conspiracy, because the answers were almost identical and didn't address his question. I suggested a fifth person who had been in meetings all morning, but was familar with the project. The project manager used his speaker phone and after asking a few questions got basically this reply: "The thing you have to understand is that even asking the design team to look at this at this point will cause at least a three month slip, and you can't afford that, because you are tied to the (system Z) deployment schedule. In fact, it is not clear that build three will be ready by then in any case, so you should make sure that any functionality provided by the current system is provided in build two. If it looks like build two will meet your current schedule, then you can evaluate this question in that context." PM: "But is this BETTER in the long run? That is what I want to know." In chorus: "Trying to answer that now will kill the project." All of this had NOTHING to do with actual programming, but everything to do with software engineering. Software engineering is all about knowing the difference between want and need, and keeping the focus on meeting requirements, whether they relate to cost, schedule, maintainability, or even to actual product functionality. The usual stock in trade of the software engineer is managing complexity, because we know that the project staff can only deal with so much at a time, and any attempt to exceed that real world limit can result in disaster. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran ` (4 more replies) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Jeff Carter ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 5 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote in article <EACHUS.97May22113850@spectre.mitre.org> an excellent example of the necessity for realism in software engineering. This sense of realism is excellent, and is frequently the one thing that makes the difference between a project that succeeds, and one which fails. And let's face it, the software industry has had its fair share of failed projects, has it not? However, I would argue that there is sometimes a flip side to this realism, in the engineering sciences in general, and computer science in particular. All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly directed (commercially orientated) research, but instead from a motley collection of scatter-brained individuals who had _imagination_. These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they invented the science. If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on' those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need our dreamers. Nick. (PS: I get a bit poetic this time of night) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Tom Moran @ 1997-05-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology > have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly > directed (commercially orientated) research After thinking of Visicalc and Apple (which acually came after Wang, Basic 4, et al), I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive lab developed great leaps forward. Some examples, please? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran @ 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-26 0:00 ` David Ray 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Tom asks << After thinking of Visicalc and Apple (which acually came after Wang, Basic 4, et al), I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive lab developed great leaps forward. Some examples, please?>> Algol-60 B-trees parallel computing (Illiac) time sharing virtual memory (U Manchester) That's just a few off the top of my head, there are undoubtedly lots more ... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` David Ray 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: David Ray @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > << After thinking of Visicalc and Apple (which acually came after Wang, > Basic 4, et al), I start drawing blanks on who outisde a great expensive > lab developed great leaps forward. Some examples, please?>> > > How about Donald Knuth? You think maybe he made a little contribution? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes: > This sense of realism is excellent, and is frequently the one thing that > makes the difference between a project that succeeds, and one which fails. > And let's face it, the software industry has had its fair share of failed > projects, has it not? > However, I would argue that there is sometimes a flip side to this realism, > in the engineering sciences in general, and computer science in particular. > All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer technology > have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly > directed (commercially orientated) research, but instead from a motley > collection of scatter-brained individuals who had _imagination_. Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in the project above. The synchronization problem is with a new system, and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently fielded system AND integrate with the new system. Enough complexity that you don't want any more. But build three has room for all the customer wants, and new technology. So in this case the build one design has to support evolution, build two is required to integrate with a system that does not yet exist, and build three has room for all the bells and whistles that the original design allows. Quite a spectrum, and a need to keep focused on today's goal. > These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they > invented the science. Noting wrong with dreaming, and in fact the project manager was reacting to features/hooks in the design which are there to support evolution. Our job was to convince him that they were needed--but were for use much later. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org>, Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote: > Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in >the project above. The synchronization problem is with a new system, >and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently >fielded system AND integrate with the new system. Enough complexity >that you don't want any more. But build three has room for all the >customer wants, and new technology. That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no longer understood what the word really means. Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-24 0:00 ` jason hummel ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz said <<That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no longer understood what the word really means. Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology.>> Well, like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, you can declare that "words mean what I want them to mean" [not a literal quote :-)] but in normal English usage, technology is a very broad word. For example, the definitions in the OED are: 1. A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific study of the practical or industrial arts. 2. The terminology of a particular art or subject; technical nomenclature. So if in your lexicon it applies to hardware and not software, you are using the word in a peculiar idiosyncratic way, which others will not understand unless you warn them of this idiosyncrasy! Certainly you cannot have a pet peeve that others do not share this non-standard viewpoint! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-24 0:00 ` jason hummel 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: jason hummel @ 1997-05-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to > software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the > term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no > longer understood what the word really means. > > Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. i don't think so. take a look at COM and DCOM. like that or not, it is a technology, a binary one at that. jason hummel -- /*----------------------------------------------------*/ kill the ".++" in the reply to address. /*----------------------------------------------------*/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-24 0:00 ` jason hummel @ 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 4 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-05-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote: >In article <EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org>, >Robert I. Eachus <eachus@spectre.mitre.org> wrote: >> Another facet of software engineering, and actually demonstrated in >>the project above. The synchronization problem is with a new system, >>and build 2 needs to provide all the capabilities of the currently >>fielded system AND integrate with the new system. Enough complexity >>that you don't want any more. But build three has room for all the >>customer wants, and new technology. > >That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to >software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the >term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no >longer understood what the word really means. > >Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. I think you have a real bias against software; you could have just as easily have said "software runs technology". There may be a symbiotic relationship with software and hardware. Say you have a tic-tac-toe game. Now, they have hardware tic-tac-toe processors (one made out of tinker toys is at The Computer Museum, in Boston). You can also use software to create on. If you did a sort Turing test with the two, you would not be able to tell the hardware one from the software one. You can look at the software as sort of an abstraction of the hardware. Then, it would represent a technological break through (just as the stored program concept was). So, software as a whole *has* to be technological. In addition, every software program could be recomposed as hardware. It would not be modifiable (I don't just mean firmware EPROMs, but that actual logic gates and analog systems could, in theory, replace any program) but you could have a hardware equivalent. In my mind, this makes the whole software/hardware distinction somewhat artificial. Future generations may even start to view technology as being primarily *software* and basically "virtual" in nature. You can define technology to mean just hardware, but software may just be plastic hardware. A lot of network and data communications algorithms and protocols get wired up as hardware for speed, in which case there is no software to discriminate against at the lower levels. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5m859v$2qr@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >I think you have a real bias against software; you could have just as >easily have said "software runs technology". There may be a symbiotic I don't think I have a bias against software! You might only perceive that if you think that hardware is somehow superior, in that the job of a hardware designer carries more prestige. >You can define technology to mean just hardware, but software may just >be plastic hardware. A lot of network and data communications algorithms >and protocols get wired up as hardware for speed, in which case there is >no software to discriminate against at the lower levels. Digital logic still isn't technology. It's really a form of software. You can change the underlying technology without changing the logic, and obtain the same behavior, modulo a difference in performance. A data register made of flip flops or an address decoder made from combinational logic can be done up in TTL, CMOS, ECL, vacuum tubes or using water pipes and valves. The essential, abstract behavior is totally separate from the implementation technology. Unless you work in marketing, you wouldn't call an OR gate ``disjunctive technology''. You see what I'm getting at? Sort of? :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote: >In article <5m859v$2qr@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, >Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >>I think you have a real bias against software; you could have just as >>easily have said "software runs technology". There may be a symbiotic > >I don't think I have a bias against software! You might only perceive >that if you think that hardware is somehow superior, in that the job >of a hardware designer carries more prestige. I think they are both equally important. I just thought of "real" technology as being more important (like "real" science as opposed to say, political science or some branches of psychology that don't get the same amount of respect.) >>You can define technology to mean just hardware, but software may just >>be plastic hardware. A lot of network and data communications algorithms >>and protocols get wired up as hardware for speed, in which case there is >>no software to discriminate against at the lower levels. > >Digital logic still isn't technology. It's really a form of software. You can >change the underlying technology without changing the logic, and obtain the >same behavior, modulo a difference in performance. A data register made of flip >flops or an address decoder made from combinational logic can be done up in >TTL, CMOS, ECL, vacuum tubes or using water pipes and valves. The essential, >abstract behavior is totally separate from the implementation technology. > >Unless you work in marketing, you wouldn't call an OR gate ``disjunctive >technology''. You see what I'm getting at? Sort of? :) That you do not feel digital logic is technology is telling. Perhaps it is more a matter of technique or represents progress of some other sort. (I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to photograph millions of them on to something the size of your thumb is. If that is what you mean, I think I can grasp the distinction. (We just need to come up with some other word or catchy phrase for the ad people.) :-) -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5md5q8$slo@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>, Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >That you do not feel digital logic is technology is telling. Perhaps it >is more a matter of technique or represents progress of some other sort. Yes, it's telling. The underlying fabrication of the hardware is technology. But the abstract functioning of the circuit is not. Look, you don't even have to comprehend simple Ohm's law to design a logic circuit to spec. On the other hand, there is a fabrication technology in which such circuits are implemented. >(I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of >mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). That's true. And that's not to say that we are deriding calculus. Only to a technocrat is it derisive to say that something is not technology. >So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to >photograph millions of them on to something the size of your thumb is. Right! A nand gate is just an abstract box that performs the service of computing not (X and Y). It can be implemented in a variety of technologies. This is far less true of, say, a transistor, of which there are countless varieties whose precise behavior depends on the underlying method of fabrication and choice of materials. >If that is what you mean, I think I can grasp the distinction. (We just >need to come up with some other word or catchy phrase for the ad people.) Nah, let them stick with technology. Now let me return to debugging some pointer dereference technology. :)) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote: : (I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of : mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). : So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to Isn't "technology" a relatively new word? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu (Fritz W Feuerbacher) wrote: >Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote: > >: (I don't think calculus is "technology" but represented an advancement of >: mathematics when it was invented by Newton (or that Leibnitz fellow)). > >: So, a NAND gate is not technology, but transistors and the ability to > >Isn't "technology" a relatively new word? I would imagine. The concept of technology and its diffusion through society started in Europe in the 16th century. This is from "The Reenchantment of the World" by Morris Berman: "Technology was hardly new in the sixteenth century, of course, but the level of its diffusion and the insistence on its being a mode of cognition were novel, and these events inevitably began to have an impact on scientists and thinkers. No longer restricted to such devices as catapults and water mills, technology became an essential aspect of the mode of production, and, as such, it began to play a corresponding role in human conscious- ness. Once technology and the economy became linked in the human mind, the mind started to think in mechanical terms, to see mechanism in nature. Thought processes themselves were becoming mechanico-mathematico- experimental, that is to say, "scientific". The merger of scholar and craftsman, geometry and technology, was now occuring within the individual human mind." [He is a very interesting author and is sort of a scientific philosoper. He feels that people today are quite literally hypnotized into believing a view of the world that is false, and cannot be maintained for more than a few more hundred years before it is replaced with something else, or we annihilate the planet and ourselves along with it. Basically, every- thing was fine for about 50,000 years or so, and in the last 3,000 years all hell has broken loose. Needless to say, his work is not for everybody.] :-) -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) i<<>Isn't "technology" a relatively new word?>> relatively recent -- the first OED quote is 1614, and there are several other 17th century and 18th centuray quotes. This in the scale of English words probably qualifies as relatively new, but I have a feeling the author of the above question might have a more recent timeframe in mind :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz says <<Digital logic still isn't technology>> Since you are using the word technology in such a bizarre and unsual way, perhaps you could post your definition so we have some chance of understading what you are talking about. P.S. Please do NOT expect other people to use the word in the same way, go to the dictionary to understand the way that everyone else uses the word! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dann Corbit 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.864687070@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Kaz says > > <<Digital logic still isn't technology>> > > Since you are using the word technology in such a bizarre and unsual way, > perhaps you could post your definition so we have some chance of understading > what you are talking about. I second this! Kaz, just what in the world do you _mean_ by "technology" anyway???? > P.S. Please do NOT expect other people to use the word in the same way, go > to the dictionary to understand the way that everyone else uses the word! Exactly... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dann Corbit 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Dann Corbit @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [relevant discussion about technology snipped] I agree with Kaz from one standpoint [in software engineering being separate from other engineering disciplines]. In electrical engineering (for instance) we have measured, known tolerances and capacities for the devices we use. Consider a resistor of 150 ohms with a 5% tolerance. We know how it behaves and what the accuracy is. We also know what the failure rate is for a given brand. We know how much power will definitely cause it to fail. When we build a circuit board from the design specification we know how the circuit behaves and what its failure rate is, for the entire board, for each component and for all acceptable inputs [we also should know what those are]. In software engineering, we have not progressed very far beyond the schematic. We do not know how the circuit performs for all possible inputs. With complex IC's, we may not always validate every input [as the Intel 80 bit float an the infamous divide bug shows] but even in those cases testing is [or should be] done which explains the inputs and outputs from a probability basis. Consider some examples: 1. Booch components (Ada) 2. C Standard Library (C) 3. STL (C++) for an object in one of the above repositories, do we know how it will behave for all inputs? Do we know how it will behave, at least as far as a probability basis? If we should happen to know for some component, how is this documented? We can't pick up the spec sheet like we would for an IC and see what the permissible voltages are and what the performance curve is like and what probability of failure is. When a component fails [e.g. given an address outside of the user's allowed bounds] how does the component behave? Are failure modes uniform or even documented? Tested components tend to be stamped "PASS/FAIL" and as new problems arise are corrected. This reactionary approach to software design can hardly be termed 'engineering'. I suggest that software could become an engineering discipline by formation of a database of components, performance, accuracies and tolerances. This database would contain the component, the test driver, and definitions for which environment it was tested under. This database does not exist right now. -- Anonymous ftp sites for C-FAQ: ftp://ftp.eskimo.com ftp://rtfm.mit.edu ftp://ftp.uu.net Hypertext C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html C-FAQ Book: ISBN 0-201-84519-9. Looking for something? Software? Algorithms? Publications? http://www.altavista.digital.com or http://www.infoseek.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 4 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I believe your wrong. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` tstcroix ` (6 more replies) 0 siblings, 7 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>, Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: > >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. > >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is the application of physics to produce technology. If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you doing engineering. Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other artifacts related to the _technology_. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` tstcroix 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-27 0:00 ` system ` (5 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: tstcroix @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not > technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the > internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't > engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems > related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other > artifacts related to the _technology_. It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering technology' but the programming metaphor forces the issue... tim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` tstcroix @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) tim says <<It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering technology' but the programming metaphor forces the issue...>> Of course it is semantically correct. You can refer to the technology of graphology, or the technology of basket weaving, or anything else. Technology is a *very* general word in normal English usage. Kaz is pushing his own remade lexicon, but do not get confused by it. The trouble with this kind of discussion of the meaning of words is that a lot of readers of CLA are not native English speakers. It is not helpful to anyone, but especially not helpful to that group, to use English words in a non-standard manner! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.864731403@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >tim says > ><<It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering >technology' >but the programming metaphor forces the issue...>> > > >Of course it is semantically correct. You can refer to the technology >of graphology, or the technology of basket weaving, or anything else. Yes, you can. But by stretching the words too thinly, so to speak, they lose their ability to discern. >Technology is a *very* general word in normal English usage. Kaz is >pushing his own remade lexicon, but do not get confused by it. The trouble I don't think that the lexicon is remade. And in any case, I'm not going to resort to the lowly tactic of changing the definitions on the fly. >with this kind of discussion of the meaning of words is that a lot of >readers of CLA are not native English speakers. It is not helpful to anyone, >but especially not helpful to that group, to use English words in a >non-standard manner! Such as using technology or engineering to refer to software. Engineering is the application of *physics* (and derivative hard sciences close to physics) to create technology. This is seems to be perfectly clear to everyone except a minority of computer weenies who suffer from engineer envy. I know real engineers who _laugh_ at the term software engineering. This definition steps on some people's toes, because they can no longer fancy themselves to be engineers. The problem is with their complex, not with my lexicon. Perhaps their father wanted them to become an engineer and they have disappointed him by becoming ``mere'' computer programmers. I have known such cases. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-31 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ralph Silverman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz says <<Such as using technology or engineering to refer to software>> Rubbish! Kaz, you really should read a dictionary. I don't know if you are a native speaker of English or not. I certainly do not know where you got your extremely odd ideas about the meaning of the word technology. Both from its classical roots, and from the definition in any dictionary, technology is a VERY general word that can be applied to virtually any systematic set of knowledge or terminology about a specific field. Somehow, you have picked up a very bizarre view of what this word means. Please look in the dictionary to figure out how the world uses this word. You might particularly study the historical references in OED II. I think you will make your arguments much more clear if you try to say what you mean directly, rather than complaining about other people's use of terminology. The issue is not whether "software technology" is an OK term, that is just an argument about words. Presumably you are trying to say "software is different from hardware in a fudnamental way, .... and this is significant because ....." By concentrating on the .... you will make your point clearer. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-31 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ralph Silverman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@vision.crest.nt.com> wrote in article <5meuvm$hpf@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>... [...] > Engineering is the application of *physics* (and derivative hard sciences close > to physics) to create technology. This is seems to be perfectly clear to > everyone except a minority of computer weenies who suffer from engineer envy. I > know real engineers who _laugh_ at the term software engineering. > > This definition steps on some people's toes, because they can no longer fancy > themselves to be engineers. The problem is with their complex, not with my > lexicon. > > Perhaps their father wanted them to become an engineer and they have > disappointed him by becoming ``mere'' computer programmers. I have known such > cases. With respect, Kaz, you couldn't be more wrong if you were to say the moon were made of cheese. Would you say that a modern motor car represented a feat of engineering? I think most people would. There are a great many problems of physics and chemistry to overcome, as well as problems of human physiology, human psychology, and all manner of 'hard' sciences. And yet, a typical piece of software has _thousands of times_ as many working parts as any car (since every single instruction in a piece of software is a working part (yes it really is)). In fact, cars nowadays have a considerable amount of software in them, to run the engines, the air conditioning, the ABS braking (as well as the navigation system, the telephone, the radio/CD player, etc, etc, etc). Does a computer inside a car engine not count as engineering? What do you think the engine's design engineers (that is their official job title) would say? The design and construction of software is as much an engineering task as building a bridge, or an office block, or a motor car. It involves the understanding and negotiation of the laws of nature (in the form of logic and mathematics) as much as building physical things requires similar skills with regard to the physical laws of nature. It involves exactly the same processes of specification, design, refinement, and testing. It usually involves much of the same knowledge of human characteristics (mostly psychological) as most physical engineering does. In short, the skills of software engineering are remarkably similar to those of other branches of engineering. These professions have come from differing traditions (some much older than others), but thoughtful people are realising these days that building software is really almost the same business as building anything else. The only difference is that the software inhabits a non-physical nether-world, and tends to be vastly more complex; there are precious few other real differences. Nick. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-31 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bc6d40$96100ca0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes: > And yet, a typical piece of software has _thousands of times_ as many > working parts as any car (since every single instruction in a piece of > software is a working part (yes it really is)). In fact, cars nowadays have I've always been surprised when people make this utterly bogus argument. If you are going to include "all the instructions or all the statements, or whatnot", then in any reasonable comparison you need to include all the _molecules_ of the car. Of which there are, ahem, quite a few more than all the software "instructions" ever written (and probably ever likely to be written in total). This seems completely reasonable: all the materials engineering and chemistry is an effort to get the actual physical stuff to work/behave/function as required. > In short, the skills of software engineering are remarkably similar to > those of other branches of engineering. These professions have come from Agreed. But, unfortunately, there has been no exploration of the analog of such engineering for software artifacts. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-31 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ralph Silverman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Ralph Silverman @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : In article <dewar.864731403@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: : >tim says : > : ><<It may not be semantically correct to refer to 'software engineering : >technology' : >but the programming metaphor forces the issue...>> : > : > : >Of course it is semantically correct. You can refer to the technology : >of graphology, or the technology of basket weaving, or anything else. : Yes, you can. But by stretching the words too thinly, so to speak, they : lose their ability to discern. : >Technology is a *very* general word in normal English usage. Kaz is : >pushing his own remade lexicon, but do not get confused by it. The trouble : I don't think that the lexicon is remade. And in any case, I'm not going to : resort to the lowly tactic of changing the definitions on the fly. : >with this kind of discussion of the meaning of words is that a lot of : >readers of CLA are not native English speakers. It is not helpful to anyone, : >but especially not helpful to that group, to use English words in a : >non-standard manner! : Such as using technology or engineering to refer to software. : Engineering is the application of *physics* (and derivative hard sciences close : to physics) to create technology. This is seems to be perfectly clear to : everyone except a minority of computer weenies who suffer from engineer envy. I : know real engineers who _laugh_ at the term software engineering. : This definition steps on some people's toes, because they can no longer fancy : themselves to be engineers. The problem is with their complex, not with my : lexicon. : Perhaps their father wanted them to become an engineer and they have : disappointed him by becoming ``mere'' computer programmers. I have known such : cases. the problem of making an automaton which can defeat a ( human ) world chess champion at chess would seem to be an engineering problem ... if achievable ! ( re. recent 'deep blue' events ... ) moreover ... much of 'hard science' and 'engineering' is now a kind of branch of computer science ... due to prevalence of computer aided design and simulation ... moreover ... regarding vehicles ... such as automotive and aviation ... fundamental operability now frequently depends on programming ... certainly at least some programming may, with reason, be viewed as engineering ! -- Ralph Silverman z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` tstcroix @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` system 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony ` (4 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: system @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: >Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: >>Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: >>: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. >>So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I >The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is >the application of physics to produce technology. >If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you >doing engineering. Never heard Chemical Engineering, eh? From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: (somebody care to dig out the OED?) Technology: 1. The application of science, esp. in industry or commerce. 2. The methods and materials thus used. Engineering: 1. The application of scientific principles to practical ends at the design, construction and operation of efficient and economical structures, equipment, and systems. Science: 1. [snip] investigation and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena 4. Knowledge, esp. knowledge gained through experience. Is Computer Science a science? Well, in the purest sense I suppose CS is more akin to mathematics than Science (TM). OTOH is anyone here willing to cross a large bridge designed by somebody who doesn't have a good grasp of trig.? I am sure there are plenty of computer programmers who are closer to bricklayers than to engineers, but there are plenty of bio grads who are glorified bottle washers too. (for a while anyways) Face it Kaz, you misstepped. Robert specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it Morphis@physics.niu.edu Real Men change diapers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` system @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Rich Miller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mfcg8$n1o@corn.cso.niu.edu>, <system at physics.niu.edu.nospam> wrote: >kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: >>Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: >>>Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: > >>>: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. > >>>So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I > >>The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is >>the application of physics to produce technology. > >>If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you >>doing engineering. > >Never heard Chemical Engineering, eh? In fact I have known chemical engineers. Chemistry is a hard natural science, subordinated to physics. You might go as far as saying that it's a branch of physics in some way. In a refinement of the definition, I have already included physics as well as hard sciences related to it. >From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: >(somebody care to dig out the OED?) > >Technology: >1. The application of science, esp. in industry or commerce. >2. The methods and materials thus used. Software is not the result of application of science, hence it's not technology, according to point 1. In any case, software isn't mentioned anywhere in the definitions, so we can only guess at the writer's intent to include it. >Engineering: >1. The application of scientific principles to practical ends at > the design, construction and operation of efficient and > economical structures, equipment, and systems. Software is not the application of scientific principles, but mathematical and logical principles at best. Anyway, primitive dictionary definitions are insufficient for an erudite debate. What on earth are scientific principles? It sounds like some dictionary authors just pulled out informed-sounding jargon out of their hats. The scientific method involves the formation of hyptheses that are verified with experiment. In this sense, the current state of software development is, ironically, somewhat scientific (picture the end user as a laboratory ``guinea pig'', or the prototyping of software as an experiment. No engineer would build a skyscraper as an experiment to see whether it would stand up, and hope to debug it later). >Science: >1. [snip] investigation and theoretical explanation of natural > phenomena We have no investigation of natural phenomena in computer science. Even this primitive dictionary recognizes that CS is a misnomer. >4. Knowledge, esp. knowledge gained through experience. This is vague. There is all kinds of experienced knowledge that isn't related to science. I won't even bother to cite examples. This definition is too porous to retain liquid. >Is Computer Science a science? Well, in the purest sense I suppose CS >is more akin to mathematics than Science (TM). OTOH is anyone here According to the definitions you have just posted, CS is certainly not a science. >willing to cross a large bridge designed by somebody who doesn't >have a good grasp of trig.? I certainly wouldn't cross a bridge designed by someone who didn't have a good grasp of trig, unless the design was independently verified to be sound and I badly needed to get across. Verification of software is also possible, of course, but it isn't based on physical laws. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Rich Miller 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Rich Miller @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mfjd9$1q9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, Kaz Kylheku <kaz@vision.crest.nt.com> wrote: > > Software is not the application of scientific principles, but mathematical > and logical principles at best.... We have no investigation of natural > phenomena in computer science. You have chosen a narrow view of software, which feels like it comes out of the 1950's and 1960's -- a time when smart people honestly believed that mathematics and logic were the essence of computer science. But these paradigms are of limited help with some interesting, larger problems, e.g. omnifont, self-training optical character recognition systems coupled with full English speech synthesis -- especially when graceful degradation in the presence of errors (so as to let the human listener's brain help correct any errors) is required. > No engineer would build a skyscraper as an experiment to see whether > it would stand up, and hope to debug it later.... Designing buildings and bridges is much more of an art than you seem to realize. Engineering failures are closely examined by engineers so as to improve their designs; but the accumulated knowledge of design, plus powerful analytic tools, didn't prevent such mis-designs as the Tacoma Narrows bridge ("Galloping Gerty") and Boston's John Hancock Building ("The Plywood Palace" -- a skyscraper named for the plywood sheets used to temporarily replace popped-out windows). You might read Levi and Salvadori's engineering book, "Why Buildings Fall Down". > I certainly wouldn't cross a bridge designed by someone who didn't > have a good grasp of trig, unless the design was independently > verified to be sound and I badly needed to get across. Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals. -- Rich Miller ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Rich Miller @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Bryce Bardin @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Rich Miller wrote: > Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and > endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals. > However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down. Bryce Bardin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Nick Leaton 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <338C5770.4E1E@westdat.com> BBardin@westdat.com "Bryce Bardin" writes: >Rich Miller wrote: > >> Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and >> endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals. >> > >However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses >were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin >walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down. Wind isn't the real problem, the forces in an arch cause the uprights to buckle outwards. Tall thin arches need the buttress to counteract this and for general stability. What the software engineering equivalent is I'm not quite sure! :-) -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com ----------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Nick Leaton 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Leaton @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lawrence Kirby wrote: > >However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses > >were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin > >walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down. > > Wind isn't the real problem, the forces in an arch cause the uprights to > buckle outwards. Tall thin arches need the buttress to counteract this > and for general stability. Wind is a major force on gothic catherals. You are right too about the buckling. -- Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Nick Leaton @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Lawrence Kirby wrote: > > In article <338C5770.4E1E@westdat.com> BBardin@westdat.com "Bryce Bardin" writes: > > >Rich Miller wrote: > > > >> Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and > >> endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals. > >> > > > >However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses > >were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin > >walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down. > > Wind isn't the real problem, the forces in an arch cause the uprights to > buckle outwards. Tall thin arches need the buttress to counteract this > and for general stability. > > What the software engineering equivalent is I'm not quite sure! :-) How about C++ "tools" such as Bounds Checker... :-) -- Remove question marks (spam repellent) from address to reply. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <338C5770.4E1E@westdat.com>, Bryce Bardin <BBardin@westdat.com> wrote: >Rich Miller wrote: > >> Not to beat a dead horse -- but you might reflect on the grace and >> endurance of Europe's numerous, many-centuries-old cathedrals. >> > >However, you might also take note that those graceful flying buttresses >were invented to cure the problem of wind loading causing the high thin >walls of the first cathedral designs to fall down. Yes, those graceful and enduring cathedrals are here because of a sort of darwinian survival of the fittest. Some ad hoc designs turned out OK, the bad ones collapsed. That's kind of how a lot of software gets developed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` tstcroix 1997-05-27 0:00 ` system @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher ` (3 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin > with. Engineering is the application of physics to produce > technology. If physics is not involved, you aren't producing > technology, nor are you doing engineering. Well, that's a mighty odd constraint of the term. What about chemical engineering? Or genetic engineering? These strke me as eminently appropriate examples of real engineering. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <JSA.97May27162012@alexandria> jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > Well, that's a mighty odd constraint of the term. What about chemical > engineering? Or genetic engineering? These strke me as eminently > appropriate examples of real engineering. Give it a break guys! (Most of) you are correct that technology can be applied to computer hardware, computer software, or even phrenology. In my original use, if you care, I was thinking of new database technology, in particular OODBMSs. But I think it is time to put this topic to bed, or to move it to some other newsgroup. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 subsequent siblings) 6 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>, : Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: : >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : > : >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. : > : >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I : The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is : the application of physics to produce technology. So I guess driving a train is not 'engineering' either? I think your hung up on semantics. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-04 0:00 ` S. Norby 6 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz says <<The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is the application of physics to produce technology.>> OK, so finally we have the most peculiar Kaz definitions of these two words. They bear of course absolutely no relationship with the normal English meaning of these words that you will find in a dictionary. For example, in OED2, we have Engineering. The work done by, or the profession of, an engineer. Engineer. One who contrives, designs, or invents, an author, designer. Technology. A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific study of the practical or industrial arts. Now you are perfectly free to use your own peculiar definitions -- you might want to write them in some special way, perhaps <<engineering>> to remind us all not to read them in the usual sense. But you are NOT free to complain about other people failing to use the words in your peculiar way! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.864928431@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >For example, in OED2, we have > >Engineering. The work done by, or the profession of, an engineer. >Engineer. One who contrives, designs, or invents, an author, designer. This is vague. I invented a new recipe for making pancakes this morning, hence I'm an engineer. >Technology. A discourse or treatise on an art or arts; the scientific >study of the practical or industrial arts. Thus, since software is neither a treatise, discourse nor a study, it's not technology. I'm certain that this definition is what every english speaker naturally associates with the word technology. For example, the NT operating system from Microsoft is a ``new treatise or discourse on an art'', hence ``new technology''. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (4 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-04 0:00 ` S. Norby 6 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>, : Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: : >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : > : >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. : > : >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I : The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is : the application of physics to produce technology. : If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you : doing engineering. : Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not : technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the : internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't : engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems : related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other : artifacts related to the _technology_. My take is this: Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. Engineering is the design and manufacture of "things" to suit a pre-defined need. "Things" can be physical objects designed to harness natural phenomena or they can be software operating in a man made environment such as a computer. If the evolution of a "thing" coming into existence involved a specification, a design process and an implementation then by my definition one could say it has been 'engineered'. Mathematics exists in the mind alone. It is the process of discovering and describing precisely by symbolic means various kinds of facts and relationships. It is the process of implementing a rich "language" which enables scientists to express their ideas and engineers to model the behviour of their phenomena-harnessing implementations of those ideas. In short: The mathematician builds the hammer, the scientist writes the instruction manual and the engineer just likes to sit there maniacally hitting things with it. :^) I would say, however, a computer scientist / engineer doesn't fit quite so easily into any of the above pidgeon holes. Civil engineers, electrical / electronic engineers, etc all have to work with the physical environment as it exists. A guy who builds a bridge cannot decide that he wants gravity to work sideways and save money on those nuts for the horizontal bolts. If a computer scientist / engineer decides that, to suit his or her specification best, a different architecture or operating system philosophy is required then that option is always open. I've forgotten who I'm agreeing with now. :^) -- Chris Russell | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997 Electronic Imaging Unit | University of Bradford | Tough on St.Helens TEL: +44 1274 385463 | Tough on the causes of St.Helens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1 sibling, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. >> I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the outcome of observations not yet made. "*the* way things work" no you are looking for *a* theory, not *the* theory! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 2 siblings, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: : <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to : discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". : "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain : behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an : attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. : >> : : I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a : capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent : with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the : outcome of observations not yet made. Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon the exploits of invisible crocodiles. The two theories give exactly the same predictions. Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with observations, how do you choose between these two theories? -- Mat. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-03 0:00 ` John Winters 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Craig Franck 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mathew Hendry wrote: > > In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > > : <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to > : discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". > : "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain > : behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an > : attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. > : >> > : > : I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a > : capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent > : with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the > : outcome of observations not yet made. > > Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, > basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon > the exploits of invisible crocodiles. > > The two theories give exactly the same predictions. > > Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with > observations, how do you choose between these two theories? > > -- Mat. Coin toss? ;-} -- Remove question marks (spam repellent) from address to reply. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > Mathew Hendry wrote: > > Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, > > basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon > > the exploits of invisible crocodiles. > > > > The two theories give exactly the same predictions. > > > > Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with > > observations, how do you choose between these two theories? You missed this one by a mile (kilometer). The competition between Relativity and quantum physics, suffered from those same arguments. You choose by the one that fits observation, can predict formerly unknown behavior, and has the least assumptions (things that are accepted, unproven, like invisible crocks and magnetic fields). Anyone with a slight background in science should know that. -Scotty ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` John Winters 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Ed Prochak - Woodland Consultants 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Craig Franck 2 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: John Winters @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > >: <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to >: discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". >: "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain >: behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an >: attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. >: >> >: >: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the >: outcome of observations not yet made. > >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. > >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. > >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with >observations, Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on? >how do you choose between these two theories? You devise tests which should produce different results depending on which of the two theories is true. Then you apply the tests, observe the results and discard whichever theories are disproven. There really is *no* other way you can do it. This is the whole essence of scientific enquiry. John -- John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` John Winters @ 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Martin C. Carlisle ` (3 more replies) 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Ed Prochak - Woodland Consultants 1 sibling, 4 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote: : In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, : Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: : >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: : > : >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent : >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the : >: outcome of observations not yet made. : > : >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, : >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon : >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. : > : >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. : > : >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with : >observations, : Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on? On their explanatory power. : >how do you choose between these two theories? : You devise tests which should produce different results depending on : which of the two theories is true. Then you apply the tests, observe : the results and discard whichever theories are disproven. Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my crocodile theory. Why not? -- Mat. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Martin C. Carlisle 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Joe Charlier 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-04 0:00 ` John Winters ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Martin C. Carlisle @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com>, Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: >In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote: >: >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent >: >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the >: >: outcome of observations not yet made. >: > >: >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, >: >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon >: >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. >: >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. >: > > >Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can >distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my >crocodile theory. Why not? Well, the reason is called Occam's razor. Simply stated, given two theories that make the same predictions, favor the simpler. Unfortunately deciding which is simpler is based on personal bias. So, although you might think invisible crocodiles aren't much of a leap of faith =), most others probably disagree. --Martin -- Martin C. Carlisle, Computer Science, US Air Force Academy mcc@cs.usafa.af.mil, http://www.usafa.af.mil/dfcs/bios/carlisle.html DISCLAIMER: This content in no way reflects the opinions, standard or policy of the US Air Force Academy or the United States Government. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Martin C. Carlisle @ 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Joe Charlier 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Joe Charlier @ 1997-06-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) What does it matter which one I choose. They both give me the correct answer, so who cares. -- Joe Charlier ======================= Aepryus Software http://www.Aepryus.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Martin C. Carlisle 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Joe Charlier @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Martin said <<Well, the reason is called Occam's razor. Simply stated, given two theories that make the same predictions, favor the simpler. Unfortunately deciding which is simpler is based on personal bias. So, although you might think invisible crocodiles aren't much of a leap of faith =), most others probably disagree. --Martin >> Actually I don't think there is any issue of personal bias here. The two theories, as I noted before are Newton newton + crocodiles It is objectively clear in this case which of these two is simpler. A similar situation arises if you consider the contrast between theories based on: 1) standard "laws" of physics 2) standard "laws" of physics presided over by a God who is free to change them These have similar predictive powers, but on a purely scientific basis, it does not increase the predictive powers to choose 2, and it adds complexity, so we don't generally explicitly choose 2 when we select a theory. Nevertheless, many scientists do in fact select 2 for their own personal belief systems, and that does not particularly affect what they do, but this is in the realm of faith, not science. As far as I can tell, the crocodiles are playing *exactly* the role that God plays in a more conventional discussion. In other words, the bottom line on the crocodiles is that you are free to believe in them if you want, but it is irrelevant from a scientific point of view to explicitly include the presence of crocodiles in the theory. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1997-06-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in article <dewar.865870047@merv>... > Actually I don't think there is any issue of personal bias here. The two > theories, as I noted before are > > Newton > newton + crocodiles > > It is objectively clear in this case which of these two is simpler. A similar > situation arises if you consider the contrast between theories based on: > > 1) standard "laws" of physics > 2) standard "laws" of physics presided over by a God who is free to change them > > These have similar predictive powers, but on a purely scientific basis, it > does not increase the predictive powers to choose 2, and it adds complexity, > so we don't generally explicitly choose 2 when we select a theory. > > Nevertheless, many scientists do in fact select 2 for their own personal > belief systems, and that does not particularly affect what they do, but > this is in the realm of faith, not science. > > As far as I can tell, the crocodiles are playing *exactly* the role that > God plays in a more conventional discussion. In other words, the bottom > line on the crocodiles is that you are free to believe in them if you want, > but it is irrelevant from a scientific point of view to explicitly include > the presence of crocodiles in the theory. At this juncture I feel I must relate the story handed down to me from University, about a famous mathematician - names are omitted to protect the innocent - who was lecturing there at the time. After giving an annual open lecture about the cosmos etc, an old lady came up to him, and said "You know, what you said about the Earth being round is all wrong." Startled, he asked "Really, madam, in what way?" "Well, you see," she replied, "really the Earth is flat, and spins on the back of a giant tortoise." Thinking he could outwit this one, he swiftly replied "Ah, but then what does the _tortoise_ stand on?" "Very clever, young man," came the reply, "but it's tortoises all the way down!" Game, set, and match. Nick :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Martin C. Carlisle @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` John Winters 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: John Winters @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com>, Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: >In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote: >: In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, >: Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: >: >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >: > >: >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent >: >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the >: >: outcome of observations not yet made. >: > >: >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, >: >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon >: >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. >: > >: >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. >: > >: >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with >: >observations, > >: Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on? > >On their explanatory power. Define. >: >how do you choose between these two theories? > >: You devise tests which should produce different results depending on >: which of the two theories is true. Then you apply the tests, observe >: the results and discard whichever theories are disproven. > >Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can >distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my >crocodile theory. Why not? Given the facts exactly as you describe them, no right-minded scientist would have any excuse for preferring one theory over the other. Show me a scientist who - if there genuinely is *no* observable reason for rejecting a theory - nonetheless rejects it, and I'll show you an incompetent scientist. However the facts never are quite as you describe them. What makes an outlandish theory outlandish is that it doesn't fit the observable facts. The skill of the scientist is in devising tests which allow them to separate the good theories from the bad ones. John -- John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Martin C. Carlisle 1997-06-04 0:00 ` John Winters @ 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry [not found] ` <19970606.49CA70..12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com> 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Volker Hetzer @ 1997-06-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mathew Hendry wrote: > > In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote: > : In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, > : Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > : >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, > : >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon > : >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. > : > > : >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. > : > > : >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with > : >observations, > : Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on? > On their explanatory power. My understanding of "explanatory power" is how much things get explained how simple. This basically boils down to what he said plus occams razor. > > : >how do you choose between these two theories? > > : You devise tests which should produce different results depending on > : which of the two theories is true. Then you apply the tests, observe > : the results and discard whichever theories are disproven. > > Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can > distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my > crocodile theory. Why not? Actually, you haven't made any predictions. You only stated that your theory WOULD make the same predictions. And it's not enough to make predictions, you also have to explain why, according to your theory, the prediction should be true. So, just think about some crocodilic reasons for orbits, about what keeps your crocodiles behind the planets (gravity/centrifugal forces are conventional theory), what they feed on, how they push the planets while feeding,... And then we will try to devise tests of your theory. Or check it against more fundamental theories. Volker ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer @ 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <19970606.49CA70..12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.c Volker Hetzer <hetzer.abg@sni.de> wrote: : Mathew Hendry wrote: : > In comp.lang.c++ John Winters <john@polo.demon.co.uk> wrote: : > : In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, : > : Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: : > : >how do you choose between these two theories? : > : > : You devise tests which should produce different results depending on : > : which of the two theories is true. Then you apply the tests, observe : > : the results and discard whichever theories are disproven. : > : > Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can : > distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my : > crocodile theory. Why not? : Actually, you haven't made any predictions. You only stated that your : theory : WOULD make the same predictions. It does make predictions, namely that the observable phenomenon behaves in exactly the same way as that predicted by the Newtonian theory. The crocodiles know that theory, and behave accordingly. If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the Newtonian one. But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not. : And it's not enough to make : predictions, : you also have to explain why, according to your theory, the prediction : should be : true. Exactly. -- Mat. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Craig Franck 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mat said << If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the Newtonian one. But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not. >> Science is only about formulating theories and making predictions (at least that is the late 20th century post-Heisenberg viewpoint). But let's look at the two theories here Newtonian explanation Crocodiles using the Newtonian theory pushing things around (as best I understand the MH alternative theory). Occam's Razor clearly selects the simpler form sans crocodiles, so your theory, while not predictively inferior, gets rejected solely on this basis (and on no other!) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Guthrie @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.ada Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: > << > If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and > numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the > Newtonian one. > But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not. > >> > Science is only about formulating theories and making predictions (at least > that is the late 20th century post-Heisenberg viewpoint). > But let's look at the two theories here > Newtonian explanation > Crocodiles using the Newtonian theory pushing things around (as best I > understand the MH alternative theory). > Occam's Razor clearly selects the simpler form sans crocodiles, so your > theory, while not predictively inferior, gets rejected solely on this > basis (and on no other!) I disagree that you need Ockham's razor to lay the so-called "Crocodile Theory" to rest. As near as I can tell, the "Crocodile Theory" can be stated this way: "There are these invisible crocodiles, and they move the planets around in some arbitrary way." (The competing theory is: "The planets move in a gravitational field according to the nature of that field.") However, crocodiles moving planets around in some unstated arbitrary way is useless to make predictions from. Therefore, the theory makes no predictions at all about planetary "behavior" (one could argue that it cannot---after all, what happens if the crocodiles change their mind about how to move the planets?) And before that fool writes me another email, no I'm not going to accept "they know about those other laws and always follow them" as a description of which arbitrary way they move the planets. I can derive the Newtonian laws of planetary motion from the nature of the gravitational field. What can you derive from the crocodiles? Other than soup, stew, etouffee, and so forth, I mean. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Information Broker Systems +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA We sell Internet access and commercial Web space. We also are general network consultants in the greater Houston area. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Anonymous 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Jonathan Guthrie 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.c Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie@brokersys.com> wrote: : I disagree that you need Ockham's razor to lay the so-called "Crocodile : Theory" to rest. As near as I can tell, the "Crocodile Theory" can : be stated this way: "There are these invisible crocodiles, and : they move the planets around in some arbitrary way." (The competing : theory is: "The planets move in a gravitational field according to : the nature of that field.") : However, crocodiles moving planets around in some unstated arbitrary way : is useless to make predictions from. Therefore, the theory makes no : predictions at all about planetary "behavior" (one could argue that it : cannot---after all, what happens if the crocodiles change their mind : about how to move the planets?) : And before that fool writes me another email, no I'm not going to accept : "they know about those other laws and always follow them" as a description : of which arbitrary way they move the planets. The predictions of the theory are the same, whether you accept it or not. Its predictions follow directly from its stated assumptions, as with any other theory, valid or not. Obviously, you would be a fool if you did accept the theory, but that's hardly the point. My intention was to illustrate the fact that theories are not simply blind prediction engines. Since you have done so well at picking holes in the _explanation_ given by the theory - rather than its predictions, which are, by definition, sound - you seem to have proved my point. Your resorting to personal insults is an added bonus, of course. -- Mat. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Anonymous 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Off topic: Crocodiles Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Spam Hater 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Jonathan Guthrie 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Anonymous @ 1997-06-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <JSA.97May14201336@alexandria> <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com> <5n1261$qj6@polo.demon.co.uk> <19970602.433020.144E5@ai078.du.pipex.com> <33983ABE.26B2@sni.de> <19970606.49CA70.12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com> <dewar.865813029@merv> <5nh0th$dam$1@news.hal-pc.org> There is one prediction the Croc o' Dile theory makes that Newtonian physics doesn't: The Croc o' Dile theory predicts the existence of the invisible crocodiles that cause the motion of the planets. ALL predictions made by a scientific theory MUST be subject to potential disproof; therefore, if the Croc o' Dile theory is a scientific theory, there must be some possible experiment or observation that would disprove this prediction if the theory is incorrect. If no such disproof is possible, the theory is not science, and will be dismissed by scientists. Jeff Carter PGP:1024/440FBE21 My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com ) "Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." Monty Python & the Holy Grail Posted with Spam Hater - see http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Off topic: Crocodiles 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Anonymous @ 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Spam Hater 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Prasad @ 1997-06-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Anonymous wrote: [snip] > > There is one prediction the Croc o' Dile theory makes that Newtonian > physics doesn't: The Croc o' Dile theory predicts the existence of the > invisible crocodiles that cause the motion of the planets. ALL > predictions made by a scientific theory MUST be subject to potential > disproof; therefore, if the Croc o' Dile theory is a scientific theory, > there must be some possible experiment or observation that would > disprove this prediction if the theory is incorrect. If no such disproof > is possible, the theory is not science, and will be dismissed by > scientists. Actually, there is no reason for it to be particularly "dismissed", it simply is not useful. It may or not represent some kind of reality, but is not concerned with measurable and observable reality. If a crocodile theory were to include Newtonion mechanics, it would be a useful way for making predictions. But then, there is already a successful theory for making predictions of this kind, so it would have to differentiate itself from Newtonion mechanics. Now if invisible crocodiles were to provide a good theory for something not properly understood, Good scientists will investigate this theory. Most scientists would not. But notice the capitalization of good. In practice most scientists would not because it could jeopardize their grants, and might make them look foolish. (At least until everybody else and the popular journals started to talk about crocodiles.) Most people would believe crocodile theories if they were a part of the culture, or if it made them feel better to believe in crocodiles. A high part of a meme's survival ability is how good it makes the believer feel. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic: Crocodiles 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Off topic: Crocodiles Mukesh Prasad @ 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mukesh said <<Actually, there is no reason for it to be particularly "dismissed", it simply is not useful. It may or not represent some kind of reality, but is not concerned with measurable and observable reality.>> The notion of unobservable reality is not only irrlevant to science, but often actively harmful. Scientists do better not to start believing in any "reality" at all, but rather to concentrate on what is observable and what is not. Once scientists start "believing" anything, they are prone to unscientific inflexibility :-) As I mentioned before Al Matson, the physicist from UT, has explored this issue very effectively. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic: Crocodiles 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Prasad @ 1997-06-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > Mukesh said > > <<Actually, there is no reason for it to be particularly > "dismissed", it simply is not useful. It may or > not represent some kind of reality, but is not > concerned with measurable and observable reality.>> > > The notion of unobservable reality is not only irrlevant to science, but > often actively harmful. Scientists do better not to start believing in Yes, but it would be rather hard to find human beings who do not believe in anything which is unprovable! Many scientists are known to be devout believers in some religion or other outside of their working lives. While it is true that any belief is going to constrain some areas of exploration (e.g. any scientists working on consciousness or related issues, who are through some accident or other, constrained by some set of religious beliefs -- are not only useless, but indeed actively harmful to the progress of such work if individually or collectively in an influential position), there need not be such connections in all cases. E.g. a chemist should be able to afford to believe in aliens, which may be outside of observable and measurable phenomenon, yet do not come into play in her work. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic: Crocodiles 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.866051313@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Mukesh said > > <<Actually, there is no reason for it to be particularly > "dismissed", it simply is not useful. It may or > not represent some kind of reality, but is not > concerned with measurable and observable reality.>> > > The notion of unobservable reality is not only irrlevant to science, but > often actively harmful. Scientists do better not to start believing in > any "reality" at all, but rather to concentrate on what is observable and > what is not. You have just crossed over into quicksand. First, "unobservable" is ill-defined. Second, even if you allow some notion of this based on some current set of capabilities, you have just pitched out the window all "hidden variable" theories as "unscientific". I don't think so. Third, if _all_ you are concerned with is "observation" (i.e., all knowledge is strictly empirically based) then you have to solve the problems presented by Hume (et.al, but Hume gives the most consistently relentless version). I suppose you could try saying that, "No, not all knowledge is empirically based, but all _scientific_ knowledge is". Perhaps, but that just side steps the issue. > to unscientific inflexibility :-) As I mentioned before Al Matson, the > physicist from UT, has explored this issue very effectively. Shrug. So have a host of others. For example, both Popper and Lakatos rather vehemently disagreed with this sort of position. It all goes back to Bohr, Complimentarity and the Copenhagen Interpretation for QM. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Anonymous 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Off topic: Crocodiles Mukesh Prasad @ 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Anonymous 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > There is one prediction the Croc o' Dile theory makes that Newtonian > physics doesn't: The Croc o' Dile theory predicts the existence of the > invisible crocodiles that cause the motion of the planets. ALL > predictions made by a scientific theory MUST be subject to potential > disproof; therefore, if the Croc o' Dile theory is a scientific theory, > there must be some possible experiment or observation that would > disprove this prediction if the theory is incorrect. If no such disproof > is possible, the theory is not science, and will be dismissed by > scientists. I really _thought_ I was out of this thread.... Do you allow "prediction" to refer to the past? If so, most of the "predictions" of Darwinian evolutionary theory can be neither proved nor disproved, and so "the theory is not science, and will be dismissed by scientists." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Spam Hater @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Anonymous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Anonymous @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <19970609.5A1DA0.14F78@an194.du.pipex.com> <199706111259.OAA29188@basement.replay.com> On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:18:00 GMT, Spam Hater <no.such.user@no.such.com> wrote: > > There is one prediction the Croc o' Dile theory makes that Newtonian > > physics doesn't: The Croc o' Dile theory predicts the existence of the > > invisible crocodiles that cause the motion of the planets. ALL > > predictions made by a scientific theory MUST be subject to potential > > disproof; therefore, if the Croc o' Dile theory is a scientific theory, > > there must be some possible experiment or observation that would > > disprove this prediction if the theory is incorrect. If no such disproof > > is possible, the theory is not science, and will be dismissed by > > scientists. > > I really _thought_ I was out of this thread.... Sorry! > > Do you allow "prediction" to refer to the past? If so, most of the > "predictions" of Darwinian evolutionary theory can be neither proved > nor disproved, and so "the theory is not science, and will be > dismissed by scientists." Since evolution has been observed in action, the predictions of the theory (in the future) have had opportunities of disproof, but were not disproved. No theory can be proved. Jeff Carter PGP:1024/440FBE21 My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com ) "Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." Monty Python & the Holy Grail Posted with Spam Hater - see http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Anonymous @ 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Guthrie @ 1997-06-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Okay, the "personal attacks" (calling you a "fool" in public hardly qualifies as a personal attack on Usenet, referencing the brouhaha on various newsgroups over an article by Ousterhout as an example of what I'm thinking of) are uncalled for, so here's what I really think. In comp.lang.ada Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: > : However, crocodiles moving planets around in some unstated arbitrary way > : is useless to make predictions from. Therefore, the theory makes no > : predictions at all about planetary "behavior" (one could argue that it > : cannot---after all, what happens if the crocodiles change their mind > : about how to move the planets?) > The predictions of the theory are the same, whether you accept it or not. Its > predictions follow directly from its stated assumptions, as with any other > theory, valid or not. You don't seem to understand. I will attempt to explain better. The positions of the planets, which is all you seem to be talking about, can be determined by Kepler's laws. Those laws can be derived from Newtonian dynamics while it is a postulate with this "crocodile theory." While it is possible to make other predictions than the future positions of the planets from Newtonian dynamics, it is not possible to predict ANYTHING using the theory that crocodiles move the planets by whim and their knowledge of Kepler's laws EXCEPT the future positions of the planets, This is true "whether you accept it or not." Therefore, your "crocodile theory" is inferior in predictive power to Newton's theory of universal gravitation, which is what you seem to be comparing it to. Now, if you were to expand your "crocodile theory" to be something like a "theory of universal crocodiles", I would point out that A) Newton doesn't attempt to explain where gravity comes from or how it works so I'm as willing to accept your theory of gravitation as any other that I've seen and B) Changing the name isn't an explanation. > Obviously, you would be a fool if you did accept the theory, but that's hardly > the point. My intention was to illustrate the fact that theories are not > simply blind prediction engines. I know what you're point is. That's why I started with a statement that Ockham's razor isn't needed. Ockham's razor is needed to select which theory is preferred when you have theories of equal predictive power. To invoke it is to concede your point. However, you have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that your theory is equal in predictive power to the laws of Newtonian mechanics (simply stating that it is won't fly---I'd just as soon believe that someone always tells you the truth because they say they do) and I am attempting to explain WHY that I'm not satisfied with your "proof." In a nutshell, it's because the "crocodile theory" only explains the motions of the planets, while Newtonian mechanics governs EVERYTHING. Well, okay, there is one other reason I don't like your example. It's really bogus to wave your hands by saying "you get the same answers, okay?" How do you know? Are you psychically linked to these crocodiles, or what? What RAW DATA are you using to create your theory with? Where does it come from? (This IS what you're trying to demonstrate, which is why it's the "other reason.") With all the competing theories out there, and all the very real examples you could make of competing theories making identical predictions with one being favored for emotional reasons, you came up with a hypothetical one. It just so happens that I agree with you: The value of theories is based upon more than their predictive power. Ockham's razor, for better or for worse, makes that sort of selection a formal part of science. However, I could come up with a better example with my eyes closed. In fact, you seem to be so attached to the hypothesis that I have an emotional attachment to Newtonian mechanics that I might use your posts to ME as an example of what you're trying to demonstrate. Further deponant sayeth not. -- Jonathan Guthrie (jguthrie@brokersys.com) Information Broker Systems +281-895-8101 http://www.brokersys.com/ 12703 Veterans Memorial #106, Houston, TX 77014, USA We sell Internet access and commercial Web space. We also are general network consultants in the greater Houston area. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Jonathan Guthrie @ 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jonathan Guthrie <jguthrie@brokersys.com> wrote: : With all the competing theories out there, and all the very real : examples you could make of competing theories making identical : predictions with one being favored for emotional reasons, you came : up with a hypothetical one. It just so happens that I agree with : you: The value of theories is based upon more than their predictive : power. Ockham's razor, for better or for worse, makes that sort of : selection a formal part of science. However, I could come up with : a better example with my eyes closed. Maybe, but the "crocodile theory" is vaguely related to a real debate. Replace crocodiles with a god, the proponents of the crocodile theory (i.e. me ;) with the Roman Catholic Church, and most other contributors to this thread with Galileans, and you might begin to see a shaky connection. The argument from "my" side would be that a god moved the various celestial bodies relative to a stationary Earth _as if_ they followed Gallilean laws. But that hypothesis was eventually rejected as a scientific explanation, because its additional postulates are redundant and untestable, and the Galilean version was later explained more fully by other theories. A more recent example might be arguments surrounding the theories of "parallel universes". Which is the better explanation - that objects at quantum scales behave _as if_ they were influenced by invisible objects, through the device of probabilistic wave functions; or that those ghost objects _really do_ exist elsewhere, and _really do_ interact with the objects in "our" universe? -- Mat. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1997-06-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Good boots. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Jason Shankel 1997-06-08 0:00 ` John G. Volan 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >Mat said > ><< >If science were only about prediction (as has been claimed in this thread and >numerous times elsewhere), the crocodile theory would be as valid as the >Newtonian one. > >But science is not, so the crocodile theory is not. > >> > > >Science is only about formulating theories and making predictions (at least >that is the late 20th century post-Heisenberg viewpoint). > >But let's look at the two theories here > >Newtonian explanation He can predict, but he has no *explanation*. The whole thing reeks of some sort of cabalistic mumbo jumbo. (The last passage of his I read had him sort of "divining the mind of God through mathematics", blah, blah, blah... >Crocodiles using the Newtonian theory pushing things around (as best I >understand the MH alternative theory). Nope. All matter interacts by exchanging virtual crocodiles. When a crocodile "hops" from one particle to the next, they can be said to be interacting. (An alternative theory has them pushing things around with their snouts: the math comes out the same either way.) >Occam's Razor clearly selects the simpler form sans crocodiles, so your >theory, while not predictively inferior, gets rejected solely on this >basis (and on no other!) But, the crocodile theory explains more because it has a method of interaction; the Newtonian theory *never* explaines *why* gravity works. Gravity works by exchanging virual crocodiles. (You can also think of it in terms of snout waves as well. In fact, we are all immersed in a sea of snout-waves.) -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Jason Shankel 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-08 0:00 ` John G. Volan 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Jason Shankel @ 1997-06-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck wrote: > But, the crocodile theory explains more because it has a method of > interaction; the Newtonian theory *never* explaines *why* gravity > works. That's why it's weak as a scientific theory. Superstring theory has this same problem. Yes, it explains much. Yes, it seems to work. But it requires a 10 dimensional universe with 7 of those dimensions wrapped too tightly to be perceived. The crocidile theory stipulates the existence of crocodiles. If these crocodiles cannot be detected by any means and simpler explanations for alleged crocodile activity cannot be disproven, then the theory isn't very useful. For "crocodile" read "string". Jason Shankel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Jason Shankel @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jason said <<The crocidile theory stipulates the existence of crocodiles. If these crocodiles cannot be detected by any means and simpler explanations for alleged crocodile activity cannot be disproven, then the theory isn't very useful.>> No, it's stronger than that, if something cannot be detected by any means, then from a scientific point of view, it simply cannot be part of any theory. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Jason Shankel @ 1997-06-08 0:00 ` John G. Volan 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: John G. Volan @ 1997-06-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I can't believe you folks are still beating this ... "subject" ... to death. It's quite embarrassing. You know, you can get help for this. There's a 12-step group for people who just can't drop a thread. It's called On-and-On-and-On Anon. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature (Name => "John G. Volan", Employer => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA", Work_Email => "johnv@ti.com", Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com", Slogan => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL", Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using" & "them would be totally erroneous ... or is that" & "just nondeterministic behavior now? :-) "); ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-08 0:00 ` John G. Volan @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` SE, Dreamers, and on and on and on W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers John G. Volan 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) John Volan says <<I can't believe you folks are still beating this ... "subject" ... to death. It's quite embarrassing. You know, you can get help for this. There's a 12-step group for people who just can't drop a thread. It's called On-and-On-and-On Anon. >> And I can't believe John is still reading the thread if he feels this way. What's the matter John, don't you know how to kill a thread? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: SE, Dreamers, and on and on and on .... 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers John G. Volan 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > You know, you can get help for this. There's a 12-step group for people > > who just can't drop a thread. It's called On-and-On-and-On Anon. > > What's the matter John, don't you know how to kill a thread? Is there such a thing as a kill file for Netscape News? (Yes, Netscape stinks. But for News, my other choices are worse.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` SE, Dreamers, and on and on and on W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` John G. Volan 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: John G. Volan @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > And I can't believe John is still reading the thread if he feels this way. > What's the matter John, don't you know how to kill a thread? Well, I was trying for humor, but if you want a serious response: I haven't been reading this thread, but I have been "watching" it. I do know how to kill a thread but generally I don't bother with a killfile; if I get fed up with the latest messages in a thread, I'll tell Netscape to mark the thread as read, collapse the tree, and go on. But, irrespective of one's kill preferences, a useless or off-topic thread, especially one that is cross-posted to multiple newsgroups like this, wastes Internet bandwidth and host resources and just contributes to the world wide wait. Also, remember that in the case of comp.lang.ada, everything posted there is echoed on the info-ada mailing list. If one has chosen to receive digests from info-ada, there's no way to "kill" threads. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature (Name => "John G. Volan", Employer => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA", Work_Email => "johnv@ti.com", Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com", Slogan => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL", Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using " & "them would be totally erroneous...or is that just " & "nondeterministic behavior now? :-) "); ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers John G. Volan @ 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<But, irrespective of one's kill preferences, a useless or off-topic thread, especially one that is cross-posted to multiple newsgroups like this, wastes Internet bandwidth and host resources and just contributes to the world wide wait. Also, remember that in the case of comp.lang.ada, everything posted there is echoed on the info-ada mailing list. If one has chosen to receive digests from info-ada, there's no way to "kill" threads. >> Cross-posting does not increase bandwidth The total bandwidth taken up by comp newsgroups is absolutely negligible in terms of the wwwait compared with the binaries in alt.sex. If the digesting process cannot kill threads, it is defective. The ability of people to follow off-topic threads obviously appeals to a lot of people. As long as a thread is easily killable, I see no measurable disadvantage. Finally, the most useless of messages are like yours and this one here, that waste time discussing whether some other thread should exist or not. You can never kill a thread by telling people to stop contributing. Instead you just dd irrelevant junk to the thread :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <19970606.49CA70..12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com>]
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <19970606.49CA70..12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com> @ 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-06-09 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-06-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <19970606.49CA70.12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com> scampi@dial.pipex.com "Mathew Hendry" writes: >It does make predictions, namely that the observable phenomenon behaves in >exactly the same way as that predicted by the Newtonian theory. The crocodiles >know that theory, and behave accordingly. The problem with the crocodile theory is that it is based on hidden knowledge, not scientific axioms. It may be valid but doesn't deal with the fundamentals. And of course the crocodiles might change their minds or die out, so the crocodile theory is not as strongly founded. -- ----------------------------------------- Lawrence Kirby | fred@genesis.demon.co.uk Wilts, England | 70734.126@compuserve.com ----------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > The problem with the crocodile theory is that it is based on hidden > knowledge, not scientific axioms. It may be valid but doesn't deal with > the fundamentals. And of course the crocodiles might change their minds or > die out, so the crocodile theory is not as strongly founded. No, the problem with the crocodile theory is that its axioms (the existence of invisible crocodiles) are offensive to "right-thinking scientists." An axiom is an unproven starting point from which the rest of a formal system is derived. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) @ 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-10 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wes says <<No, the problem with the crocodile theory is that its axioms (the existence of invisible crocodiles) are offensive to "right-thinking scientists." >> As a practical description of how some scientists think, this is probably accurate, but as a description of how they SHOULD think it is flawed. The history of science is full of incidents of scientists rejecting superior (in a predictive sense) theories because they find them offensive (e.g. Einstein's objections to Heisenberg's theories), but such non-scientific reactions often stand in the way of progress. if the crocodile theory had superior predictive capabilities, then it should immediately be accepted by all scientists. In fact, the theory does NOT have superior predictive capabilities, and is unnecessarily complex, in that it proposes elements that cannot be deduced as useful from observations, and which are therefore junk. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-10 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) @ 1997-06-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > <<No, the problem with the crocodile theory is that its axioms > (the existence of invisible crocodiles) are offensive to > "right-thinking scientists." > >> > > As a practical description of how some scientists think, this is probably > accurate, but as a description of how they SHOULD think it is flawed. Yes. The quote-marks were a reminder that "right-thinking" was not _my_ phrase. :-) > [snip] .... if > the crocodile theory had superior predictive capabilities, then it > should immediately be accepted by all scientists. .... But it won't be. Scientists, being human, have just as much tendency (as a group) to pig-headedness as the rest of us (as you suggested in what I snipped). A modern example: Some doctors are claiming that there is empirical evidence that prayer improves a patient's chances of recovery. Some say this evidence does not exist. But a large number are blasting their colleagues for even suggesting such an unscientific thing. Having fanned the flames of all the bigots on both sides of the religion issue, I now bow out of this thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer @ 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 3 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mat said <<Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my crocodile theory. Why not? >> We have not seen your crocodile theory, so guesses as to whether or not it might be accepted are silly. Note that in using the word crocodile, you are appealing to an informal notion of reality which might or might not be helpful. Perhaps it would be better to call it your crocjunk theory to avoid unnecessary associations (though sometimes these associations are useful). We choose between theories on the basis of predictive power, and if we have two competing theories then we choose the simpler one in Occam's sense. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In comp.lang.c Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: : Mat said : <<Since the above theories make the same predictions, no experimental test can : distinguish between them. And yet no right-minded scientist would believe my : crocodile theory. Why not? : >> : We have not seen your crocodile theory, so guesses as to whether or not it : might be accepted are silly. Okay, here it is again. There are some crocodiles. They know everything about current theories of dynamics. They move objects around accordingly. : Note that in using the word crocodile, you are : appealing to an informal notion of reality which might or might not be : helpful. My terminology is irrelevant. I have provided the predictions, which you seem to think are all that can be _required_ from a theory. : Perhaps it would be better to call it your crocjunk theory to : avoid unnecessary associations (though sometimes these associations are : useful). Again, irrelevant. But please, give the theory the name which you think will help your argument the most. : We choose between theories on the basis of predictive power, and if we have : two competing theories then we choose the simpler one in Occam's sense. Then you agree with me. Prediction alone is not enough. -- Mat. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` John Winters 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Ed Prochak - Woodland Consultants 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Ed Prochak - Woodland Consultants @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) This has certainly gone off the languages thread, but I'll toss out one comment here. John Winters (john@polo.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, : Mathew Hendry <scampi@dial.pipex.com> wrote: : >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: : > : >: <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to : >: discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". : >: "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain : >: behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an : >: attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. : >: >> : >: : >: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a : >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent : >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the : >: outcome of observations not yet made. : > : >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, : >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon : >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. : > : >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. : > : >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with : >observations, : Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on? : >how do you choose between these two theories? : You devise tests which should produce different results depending on : which of the two theories is true. Then you apply the tests, observe : the results and discard whichever theories are disproven. : There really is *no* other way you can do it. This is the whole : essence of scientific enquiry. : John : -- : John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England. There is one tool used in this situation: Occam's razor. Of two theories which differ in assumptions, but result in the same predictions , and match the same observations, keep the one with the fewer and simpler assumptions. granted real theories are not easily recognizable as clearly simpler than another (consider the fundamental physics theories like "strings" and its competitors) But to at least keep this thread to software, I'd say this is clearly an Engineering type field. Our jobs are to get something working. There obviously is some Computer Science to back us up, even though it is not always codified in clearcut equations. Analysis of algorithms are one tool to help. Reusable components (libraries, objects, whatever) are another part of an Engineering approach. Appropriate programming languages should be another. Enough for now. I've got work to do. ed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-06-03 0:00 ` John Winters @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Craig Franck 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) scampi@dial.pipex.com (Mathew Hendry) wrote: >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > >: <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to >: discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". >: "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain >: behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an >: attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. >: >> >: >: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the >: outcome of observations not yet made. > >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. > >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. > >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with >observations, how do you choose between these two theories? Look to your weltanschauung and let it guide you. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry @ 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.865041126@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to > discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". > "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain > behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an > attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. > >> > > I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a > capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent > with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the > outcome of observations not yet made. It is worth pointing out though, that this sort of view _only_ came about around 60-70 years ago and can be pinned squarely on the back of Bohr. The notion of "complimentarity" was the birth of this sort of view in physics (and it seems to have "infected" other branches as time went along) in an attempt to _somehow_ come to grips with the epistemological problems of the "quantum fix". /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1997-06-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in article <dewar.865041126@merv>... > <<Science, be it physics, chemistry, biology or whatever, is an attempt to > discover the laws and principles which govern the existence of "things". > "Things" can be natural phenomena or a phenomenon exhibiting certain > behaviour which is defineable at whatever level. It's basically an > attempt to explain the way things, any things, work. > >> > > I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a > capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent > with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the > outcome of observations not yet made. > > "*the* way things work" > > no > > you are looking for *a* theory, not *the* theory! This brings the theory of multiple realities into play. A concept I think most people find a bit hard to grasp (or swallow or whatever [maybe grasp in one universe and swallow in another?]). Nick ;-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Nick Roberts @ 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Nick Roberts said <<This brings the theory of multiple realities into play. A concept I think most people find a bit hard to grasp (or swallow or whatever [maybe grasp in one universe and swallow in another?]). >> Actually the concept of even *one* reality is quite irrelevant to science in the view of many philosophers. Indeed Al Matson argues that it is a detriment for a scientist to believe in the notion of reality, because it will tend to cloud pure abstract thinking about what theories match observations. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. You would get some pretty heated disagreement over this from many mathematicians and philosophers (you would also get a number lining up on your side...) Of course, this just punts the problem to the issue of "what is mind" - which is even more inflammatory. > It is the process of discovering and describing precisely by > symbolic means various kinds of facts and relationships. <playing one of those who would disagree with the above bit>: OK, so what do these "facts" and "relationships" concern? What are they about? Of what are they facts and relationships?? Sounds like something "out there"... > I've forgotten who I'm agreeing with now. :^) :-)!! /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com>]
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` H. Blakely Williford 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: H. Blakely Williford @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dann Corbit wrote: > (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > > > > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. can you look at a sun rise and say this? the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? -- H. Blakely Williford | Men never do evil so completely and Systems Administrator/Programmer | cheerfully as when they do it from The Fuller Brush Company | religious conviction. -- Pascal ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: " H. Blakely Williford @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: >Dann Corbit wrote: >> (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: >> > >> > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. > >can you look at a sun rise and say this? > >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. Because of this, it is clearly only in our minds even more than math is. I think Mr. Goats point can be made clearer once you realize that math is about symbols and how you can transform them into one another. "2 + 2 = 4" seems to be expressing a relationship of some sort that exists externally in nature, but what it means and how we interpret is actually quite close to how we process langauge. You wouldn't say English exists in nature, and is not solely the product of our brains, just because you can point to a big leafy green thing and say "tree". It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in many others as well) math is a product of our brains. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1 sibling, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck wrote: > "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: > >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? > > You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains > process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. Sorry, Craig, you got this wrong. Light of different colors is light of different frequencies. The frequency of light emitted by some atom, does, in fact, exist independent of our brains. It's called hertz. Using your argument, only the word "color" is dependent upon out brains to interpret it (as you point out below). > Because of this, it is clearly only in our minds even more than math > is. I think Mr. Goats point can be made clearer once you realize that > math is about symbols and how you can transform them into one another. > "2 + 2 = 4" seems to be expressing a relationship of some sort that > exists externally in nature, but what it means and how we interpret > is actually quite close to how we process langauge. You wouldn't say > English exists in nature, and is not solely the product of our brains, > just because you can point to a big leafy green thing and say "tree". > It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be > discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in > many others as well) math is a product of our brains. > > -- > Craig > clfranck@worldnet.att.net > Manchester, NH > I don't pretend to understand the universe, it is > a great deal bigger than I am. -- Thomas Carlyle ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3394E51B.7A5A@flash.net>, Spaceman Spiff <csweber@flash.net> wrote: >Craig Franck wrote: >> "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: >> >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? >> >> You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains >> process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. > >Sorry, Craig, you got this wrong. >Light of different colors is light of different frequencies. That is false, Spiff. Colors can be perceived as a result of a pure frequency or as a result of the mixture of two or more frequencies. The eye only responds to two or three different regions of the spectrum. This is why only three different kinds of phosphor elements in a CRT display are able to reproduce such a wide variety of hues. >The frequency of light emitted by some atom, does, in fact, >exist independent of our brains. It's called hertz. From this it does not follow that every brain perceives color in the same way, or that color exists independently of the observer. I don't see the necessary connection between frequency and the sensation of color. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) spaceman says <<Sorry, Craig, you got this wrong. Light of different colors is light of different frequencies. The frequency of light emitted by some atom, does, in fact, exist independent of our brains. It's called hertz. Using your argument, only the word "color" is dependent upon out brains to interpret it (as you point out below).>> That's wrong. Wavelength is wavelength, color is color. There is a relation but it is not nearly as close as you seem to think. Color is definitely about perception. You can perceive color even though no light of the relevant wavelength is present. the Land two color experiments (and many other similar experiments) show this conclusively. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Ceri Stagg @ 1997-06-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) |> > Because of this, it is clearly only in our minds even more than math |> > is. I think Mr. Goats point can be made clearer once you realize that |> > math is about symbols and how you can transform them into one another. |> > "2 + 2 = 4" seems to be expressing a relationship of some sort that |> > exists externally in nature, but what it means and how we interpret |> > is actually quite close to how we process langauge. You wouldn't say |> > English exists in nature, and is not solely the product of our brains, |> > just because you can point to a big leafy green thing and say "tree". |> > It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be |> > discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in |> > many others as well) math is a product of our brains. I think a distinction should be made between NUMBERS and NUMERALS. Our mathematical system's rules are not arbitrary, they have been chosen because of their mapping to the laws of numbers we see in nature, e.g. if we have 4 things (I mean the number 4, not the numeral) and remove 2, we clearly have only 2 remaining. Admittedly, maths is not a science per se because most of it deals with platonic ideas that cannot be directly seen or touched, making it trickier to get a handle on in these areas than e.g. physics, but I think it's wrong to suggest that something like the Mandelbrot set doesn't exist outside people's minds.....surely the Mandelbrot set is a discovery, not an invention? I don't think mathematical systems can have the arbitrariness of languages. The numerals and symbols can be arbitrary, but their transformation rules MUST consistently map onto and track the relationships of numbers. But getting your head around the verifications involved in this is indeed tricky stuff...... ____ ____/....\____ C.P.Stagg |____ Ceri ____| ------------------ / \____/ \ ceris@dai.ed.ac.uk """""""""""""""" ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Philip Brashear @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) OK, I finally got sucked into this maelstrom. Why are people talking about numbers so much? There seems to be a strong impression that mathematics = the study of numbers. No, that's arithmetic. Mathematics is the study of logical implication: one puts up a set of postulates and studies the theorems (implications) that result. Some of these postulates concern these "number" things (like Peano's postulates). Others concern these "geometric" things (like several people's attempts to perfect Euclid's postulates). Others concern things with no obvious relation to observable reality. (The latter are often the most interesting and turn out to have great impact on the "real" world. Talk about serendipity!) When I was working on that elusive Ph.D. in math, my field was topological algebra (as distinguished from algebraic topology). I REALLY didn't deal with numeric concepts. Phil Brashear ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear @ 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 1997-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Brashear Philip Brashear wrote: > > When I was working on that elusive Ph.D. in math, my field was > topological algebra (as distinguished from algebraic topology). So do you crack a smile when the Unix folks talk about filters? > Phil Brashear -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Senior Software SE The values in from and reply-to are for the benefit of spammers: reply to domain eds.com, user msustys1.smetz or to domain gsg.eds.com, user smetz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck (clfranck@worldnet.att.net) wrote: : "H. Blakely Williford" <blakew@fuller.com> wrote: : >Dann Corbit wrote: : >> (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: : >> > : >> > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. : > : >can you look at a sun rise and say this? : > : >the way the particles in the upper atmosphere refract the light? : You are not helping the cause any. Color arises from how are brains : process light, and does not exist independently of our perceiving it. <SNIP> : It is not like the word "tree" was laying about, just waiting to be : discovered, any more than the symbol "2" was. In this sense (and in : many others as well) math is a product of our brains. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. -- Chris Russell | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997 Electronic Imaging Unit | University of Bradford | Tough on St.Helens TEL: +44 1274 385463 | Tough on the causes of St.Helens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: " H. Blakely Williford @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! [not found] ` <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dann Corbit (dcorbit@solutionsiq.com) wrote: : Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote in article : <JSA.97Jun2174143@alexandria>... : > In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk : (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: : > : > > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. : > : > You would get some pretty heated disagreement over this from many : > mathematicians and philosophers (you would also get a number lining up : > on your side...) Of course, this just punts the problem to the issue : > of "what is mind" - which is even more inflammatory. Oh dear. In an attempt to give my view of an apparant stretching of a word's definition I seem to have done the same thing. :^) : Here is some real flame bait [addressed primarily to Mr. 'Vibrating' ;-)]: Actually Vibrating is my first name. You may call me Vibrating but for correctness above it would be Mr.Goats. :^) : If math exists in the mind alone, does a stupid person and a smart one have : a different set of mathematics rules that apply to them? What about a : planet with no people on it, and we are not aware of it? Must it plummet : into its star, since there is no math available to make it obey the inverse : square law? Well, I recently posted this in another newsgroup (rec.sport.rugby.league, strange as it may seem) which may answer the question: >> <Pedantic mode on> >> >> Immeasurable phenomena do not disappear with a puff of logic, they remain >> unquantifiable (if there is such a word) until such time as a means of >> measuring that phenomena is discovered. >> >> <Pedantic mode off> In otherwords, just because we do not know of something or are unable to comprehend it does not mean such a thing does not exist. <Dogs doing calculus in their heads to catch balls snipped for brevity ;^) > Now then, the defintion I attribute to mathematics I laid out like this: >> Mathematics exists in the mind alone. It is the process of discovering >> and describing precisely by symbolic means various kinds of facts and >> relationships. It is the process of implementing a rich "language" which >> enables scientists to express their ideas and engineers to model the >> behviour of their phenomena-harnessing implementations of those ideas. What I'm trying to say here is that it could be argued (by me amongst others) that the relationships between objects and phenomena exist anyway. Mathematics is the ongoing creation of a extraordinarily rich and diverse language which enables us to express those relationships. A mathematician is creating a tool for scientists and engineers alike. It may require a mathematician to make use of that tool at times but, at it's very core, tool creation is what I believe to be the essence of maths. I don't see it as being different from any other language in that it enables us to get a particular idea or point of view across. It often does so with more success than I do with English, but there I digress. :^) Distant unknown planets do not crash into their sun because no one there has *discovered* the inverse square law. That relationship continues to exist in a form unexpressable to the local inhabitants. That is what I meant by saying "Mathematics exists in the mind alone". The relationships and properties are already there but the language used to describe them is a human creation. : The universe does not revolve around the human race. The human race is a : miniscule part of the universe. We do not manufacture the mathematical and : physical laws. Why must people constantly place themselves as the bright, : shining core of existence? I do not, not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm quite sure that my comprehension of the universe we live in is inexplicably small in relation to the size of that universe. As such I'm quite happy to be talked out of a point of view if I can be convinced I'm on the wrong track. Cheers, Chris. -- Chris Russell | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997 Electronic Imaging Unit | University of Bradford | Tough on St.Helens TEL: +44 1274 385463 | Tough on the causes of St.Helens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku [not found] ` <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: �Stephen! @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2183 bytes --] Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats wrote: > > Dann Corbit (dcorbit@solutionsiq.com) wrote: > : Jon S Anthony <jsa@alexandria> wrote in article > : <JSA.97Jun2174143@alexandria>... > : > In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk > : (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: > In otherwords, just because we do not know of something or are unable to > comprehend it does not mean such a thing does not exist. Little kids don't know what gravity is, but when they fall down... > What I'm trying to say here is that it could be argued (by me amongst > others) that the relationships between objects and phenomena exist > anyway. Mathematics is the ongoing creation of a extraordinarily rich and > diverse language which enables us to express those relationships. A > mathematician is creating a tool for scientists and engineers alike. It > may require a mathematician to make use of that tool at times but, at > it's very core, tool creation is what I believe to be the essence of maths. I like to think of mathematics as a means of expressing the relationships between numbers. The angles of a square, the lengths of the sides of a pentagon, even the relationships between musical notes can be expressed as a pattern of numbers. C4 is 12 notes from C5 is a perfectly valid mathmatical statement. Programming is merely a way of expressing the relationships between a computer and the outside world. <snip> > > That is what I meant by saying "Mathematics exists in the mind alone". > The relationships and properties are already there but the language > used to describe them is a human creation. One is a totally arbitrary name. It may be called "Throbene" for all it matters, it is merely a way of expressing the number. The names for the numbers are a human invention, the numbers themselves are not. <snip> Math is similar to English in this respect. The object exists whether you call it "water", "aqua", etc. To quote Shakespeare "A rose by any other name smells just as sweet..." -- �Stephen! Maintainer of the Punk and Metal Midi Archives http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4063/index.html "Just the thoughts of a disillusioned teen..." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! @ 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --] In article <3395FF96.107E@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us>, �Stephen! <99borns@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us> wrote: > I like to think of mathematics as a means of expressing the >relationships between numbers. The angles of a square, the lengths of Not broad enough. There exist plenty of abstract mathematical entities with interesting formal properties that are nevertheless not numbers. > One is a totally arbitrary name. It may be called "Throbene" for all it >matters, it is merely a way of expressing the number. The names for the >numbers are a human invention, the numbers themselves are not. You are making a mere philosophical hypothesis here. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Volker Hetzer @ 1997-06-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > = > In article <3395FF96.107E@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us>, > =A1Stephen! <99borns@ionaprep.pvt.k12.ny.us> wrote: > > One is a totally arbitrary name. It may be called "Throbene" fo= r all it > >matters, it is merely a way of expressing the number. The names for th= e > >numbers are a human invention, the numbers themselves are not. Try to see it that way: Without minds to think, there would be no numbers. Of course there would still be one earth, but the abstcraction from the planet to the number 1 would not be made. But that abstraction is what mathematics is about. Therefore: No mind, no mathematics. Volker ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin>]
[parent not found: <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net>]
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 2 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around > to hear it? > Answer: It makes a sound. Define Sound. > Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect > the falling tree? > Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. Do you have empirical evidence for this? Is this getting ridiculous or what? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam Hater wrote: > > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around > > to hear it? > > Answer: It makes a sound. > > Define Sound. A wave of compression a rarefration of gas molecules caused by any mechanical action. > > Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect > > the falling tree? > > Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > Do you have empirical evidence for this? He can't, there was no one to observe it. > Is this getting ridiculous or what? Yes, it is. When you know what happened to Schrodinger's cat, then let us know... -Scotty ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > Spam Hater wrote: > > > Is this getting ridiculous or what? > > Yes, it is. > When you know what happened to Schrodinger's cat, > then let us know... It was abducted by aliens and adopted by Elvis Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > > Is this getting ridiculous or what? > > Yes, it is. > When you know what happened to Schrodinger's cat, > then let us know... Schrodinger fastened a piece of toast to the cat's back and dropped it. Since a cat must always land on its feet, and a piece of toast must always land buttered side down, the only way to resolve the impasse was for the cat (without the fiddle) to follow the cow to the moon. With hopes of antigravity, Schrodinger tried to duplicate the experiment, with another cat, but so far has been unable to get a cat to hold still long enough. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mukesh Prasad @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam Hater wrote: > > > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around > > to hear it? > > Answer: It makes a sound. > > Define Sound. Good point. Here are a couple (not too good, complete or elaborate) definitions: 1) Molecular vibrations of a particular type. (Typically in air.) Implication: Tree does make a sound. 2) A human experience which all humans (who are not deaf) know about. Implication: Tree does not make a sound. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Philip Hindman @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Phil Berman wrote: > > My response to this question has always been this: > Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around to > hear it? > Answer: It makes a sound. > > Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > falling tree? > Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > Conclusion: The tree makes a sound when it falls. Yes, but how do you _know_ someone the presence or absence of a human being does not affect it? See Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Philip Hindman | "We _mock_ what we do not understand." | | Cylon@ou.edu | Dan Akroyd | | The not-so-newbie | "Spies Like Us" | | student programmer | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "Phil Berman" <madivaan@gte.net> wrote: >My response to this question has always been this: >Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around to >hear it? >Answer: It makes a sound. > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the >falling tree? >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. What if it hits the observer? >Conclusion: The tree makes a sound when it falls. When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH "Thinking is highly overrated." -- Zippy the Pin Head ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley 2 siblings, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-18 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck wrote: > > > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > >falling tree? > >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > What if it hits the observer? ROFL!! > When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? *GISH* > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? 6.92 miles per sec. Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Anonymous 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Steve Howard @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: [snip] > Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? African or European? -- Steve Howard | Lockheed Martin Ocean, Radar & Sensor Systems Software Engineer | P.O. Box 4840 EP-7 MD 63 (315) 456-7579 | Syracuse, New York 13221 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Anonymous 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Anonymous @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <JSA.97May14201336@alexandria><EACHUS.97May23174831@spectre.mitre.org> <5m57nu$7si@bcrkh13.bnr.ca><5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu> <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca><5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <JSA.97Jun2174143@alexandria> <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> <5n45ou$cio@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> <5o9v30$kg0@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net> <33A88408.1ECC@flash.net> On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 08:27:16 -0400, Steve Howard <howard@syr.lmco.com> wrote: > Spaceman Spiff wrote: > [snip] > > Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? > > African or European? It doesn't matter. The answer is 42. Now I just have to get the units right. Jeff Carter PGP:1024/440FBE21 My real e-mail address: ( carter @ innocon . com ) "Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." Monty Python & the Holy Grail Posted with Spam Hater - see http://www.compulink.co.uk/~net-services/spam/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard @ 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 2 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > Craig Franck wrote: > > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > > 6.92 miles per sec. But orbit is not good enough. The cow should jump over the moon. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam Hater wrote: > > Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > Craig Franck wrote: > > > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > > > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > > > > 6.92 miles per sec. > > But orbit is not good enough. The cow should jump over the moon. That, sir, it "Udder Lunacy"!! HA!!! -Scotty ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: root @ 1997-06-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 22:02:22 GMT, Spam Hater <no.such.user@no.such.com> wrote: >Spaceman Spiff wrote: >> Craig Franck wrote: >> > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung >> > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? >> >> 6.92 miles per sec. > >But orbit is not good enough. The cow should jump over the moon. Well, what is the required velocity (magnitude and direction), if said launch should take place in central Iowa? > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA >Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be > wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com > >Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space >on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or >the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising >on them is trespassing! >---------------------------------------------------------------------- My address is corrupted to reduce spam. If you can't figure out my true address from the corrupted one I don't want to receive email from you anyway. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Alicia Carla Longstreet @ 1997-06-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spaceman Spiff wrote: > > Craig Franck wrote: > > > > > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > > >falling tree? > > >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > > > What if it hits the observer? That doesn't have much of an impact on the tree, only the stupid observer. Of course, according to the Hiesenberg Uncertantity Principal, the observer either alters the location of the tree or alters the motion of the tree, depending on whether the observer is measuring the speed of the tree or determining its location. > ROFL!! > > > When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? No. Sound is a cranial occurance. The motion of the tree produces compressions and refactions in the atmosphere, it requires and ear and a certain minium congnitive ability to convert the compressions and rarefactions into sound. A deaf mute does not have the requisite ear. Of course, almost any animal could be present to make the needed conversion. > *GISH* Tha is my Aunts favorite bid at bridge. > > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > 6.92 miles per sec. > Now what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow? The cow would not be able to acheive orbit, but you would have an interesting phenomona, a meteorite rising from the Earth's surface. Not to mention, a very well done roast, somewhere. -- ******************************************** * Alicia Carla Longstreet carla@ici.net ******************************************** Knowledge Sir, should be free. Harry Mudd from "I, Mudd" **************************************** Knowledge is free..., but you do have to pay me for my time and effort in presenting the knowledge in a manner that makes it easier for you to learn. You are free to reinvent the wheel anytime you please. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff @ 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Craig Franck wrote: > > "Phil Berman" <madivaan@gte.net> wrote: > > >My response to this question has always been this: > >Question #1: What does a tree do when it falls and someone IS around to > >hear it? > >Answer: It makes a sound. > > > >Question #2: How does the presence or absence of an observer affect the > >falling tree? > >Answer: It doesn't make a bit of difference. > > What if it hits the observer? It makes a different sound (more squashy). > >Conclusion: The tree makes a sound when it falls. > > When a tree falls in the woods and crushes a deaf-mute, is there a sound? Yes, but it doesn't help him. > And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung > from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? 0 (Zero) ! A cow on a catapult does not move much. This changes when the catapult is enganged. And yes, it makes a sound, even if the cow is deaf. Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms @ 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: David Thornley @ 1997-06-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5o9v30$kg0@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>, Craig Franck <clfranck@worldnet.att.net> wrote: >"Phil Berman" <madivaan@gte.net> wrote: > >And in the same vein, what must the initial velocity of a cow being flung >from a catapult be in order to achieve orbit? > As somebody pointed out, let's use the velocity of the cow after it's flung from a catapult, rather than the initial velocity (0, and remains so until we fire the catapult). It can't go into Earth orbit without a course correction, since if it were in an orbit it would return to the last point delta-V was nonzero, which corresponds to the catapult. It will likely have left due to Earth's rotation, but that's still deep in atmosphere. So, we come up with the following questions: What's the terminal velocity of an unladen cow? Will the cow burn up in re-entry? Or will there be parts only medium well? Is this an African or a European cow? If it burns up on re-entry, wouldn't it also burn up on leaving the catapult? What does any of this have to do with comp.lang.c? David Thornley (So how about *solar* orbit?) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> @ 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Joe Charlier 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-06-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jon S Anthony (jsa@alexandria) wrote: : In article <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) writes: : > Mathematics exists in the mind alone. This is one of the unanswered questions in mathematics. Does all the math already exist only for man to discover it, or man invent the math so it can exist? I doubt you'll be answering this very soon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Joe Charlier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Joe Charlier @ 1997-06-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Define Mathematics Define Mind Define exists in Define alone then let's talk -- Joe Charlier ======================= Aepryus Software http://www.Aepryus.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (5 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-06-04 0:00 ` S. Norby 6 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: S. Norby @ 1997-06-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>, > Fritz W Feuerbacher <fwf27775@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote: > >Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: > > > >: Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. > > > >So the concept of Software Engineering Technology is not a technology? I > > The concept of software engineering is flawed to begin with. Engineering is > the application of physics to produce technology. > > If physics is not involved, you aren't producing technology, nor are you > doing engineering. > > Examples: writing software is not engineering, and the result is not > technology, because principles of physics are not required to understand the > internal semantics of software systems. Designing a pure logic circuit isn't > engineering either, except when you have to solve implementation problems > related to heat dissipation, capacitive or inductive coupling and other > artifacts related to the _technology_. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ from WWWebster Dictionary: Main Entry:(1) engineer Function: noun Etymology: alter. of earlier enginer, from Middle English, alteration of enginour, from Middle French engigneur, from Old French engignier to contrive, from engin Date: 14th century 1 : a member of a military group devoted to engineering work 2 obsolete : a crafty schemer : PLOTTER 3 a : a designer or builder of engines b : a person who is trained in or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c : a person who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance 4 : a person who runs or supervises an engine or an apparatus Main Entry:(2) engineer Function: transitive verb Date: 1843 1 : to lay out, construct, or manage as an engineer 2 a : to contrive or plan out usually with more or less subtle skill and craft b : to guide the course of 3 : to modify or produce by genetic engineering <grain crops engineered to require fewer nutrients and produce higher yields> Main Entry: engineering Function: noun Date: 1720 1 : the activities or function of an engineer 2 a : the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people b : the design and manufacture of complex products <software engineering> 3 : calculated manipulation or direction (as of behavior) <social engineering> -- compare GENETIC ENGINEERING Main Entry: technology Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -gies Etymology: Greek technologia systematic treatment of an art, from technE art, skill + -o- + -logia -logy Date: 1859 1 a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : ENGINEERING 2 <medical technology> b : a capability given by the practical application of knowledge <a car's fuel-saving technology> 2 : a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge <new technologies for information storage> 3 : the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational technology> - technologist /-jist/ noun ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Suzette N. \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ \\\ ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) ( :) /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// (Speaking only for myself) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 4 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : That's another pet peeve of mine: using ``technology'' with reference to : software. I've noticed that some hardware manfuacturers have been using the : term ``hardware technology'' in their marketing propaganda since it's no : longer understood what the word really means. : Software is not technology; the stuff that it runs on is technology. Surely a technology is an abstract label given to a means used to achieve an aim: Certain building technologies stop bridges from falling down. Certain electronic technologies allow communication between remote persons. Certain software technologies allow given sets of data to be stored and retrieved in an efficient manner. All seem worthy of the title to me. -- Chris Russell | Bradford Bulls - Wembley 1997 Electronic Imaging Unit | University of Bradford | Tough on St.Helens TEL: +44 1274 385463 | Tough on the causes of St.Helens. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Bill Anderson 4 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Mark Allen Framness @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In message <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> - "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes: :> :>These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they :>invented the science. :> :>If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not :>today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on' :>those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this :>impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need :>our dreamers. Yeah sure this is all true, but we can not lose fact of the sight that science is much closer to EVOLUTION rather than REVOLUTION, you do say this but I want to pull out that salient point. Scientific revolutions do happen but they are far and few in betweeen. In general all scientists are dreamers (the same can not be said about engineers though). The very nature of science demands a creative approach to problems. Engineering typically is a much more pragmatic discipline. I studied math & physics at the University. I complained to an engineer friend about all of the canned formulas they use and how if they would just use first principles they can derive those and would not have to memorize all of that stuff by rote. His response was simply: we do not have the time to do that, which is true. Pretty soon I would guess we will see the title "computer science" become a lot less significant. Most people will no longer work for a BS in Computer Science, but in Computer Engineering instead. Most computer science programs will become servant programs to the Computer Engineering programs and those who are studying computer science as an undergraduate plan to work for a MS or a PhD in computer science. Take Care! postmaster@[127.0.0.1] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Spam booby trap!!! FROM: Mark Allen Framness HOME: framness@.NO_SPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE ^^^^^^^^ To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above address. WORK: m477@NO_SPAM.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae ^^^^^^^ To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above address. HTTP: http://netnet.net/~farmer/index.html To send me e-mail use the above address and delete NOSPAM from the one in the reply field. All standard disclaimers apply. Anyone who says likewise is itching for a fight! Visit my homepage and answer the Trivial Troubles question! /************** NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE ***********************/ For a fee of $500.00 I will proofread your unsolicited commercial e-mail. Mailing me commercial e-mail constitutes acceptance of the above terms. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Bill Anderson 4 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Mark Allen Framness @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In message <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> - "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes: :> :>These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they :>invented the science. :> :>If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not :>today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on' :>those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this :>impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need :>our dreamers. Yeah sure this is all true, but we can not lose fact of the sight that science is much closer to EVOLUTION rather than REVOLUTION, you do say this but I want to pull out that salient point. Scientific revolutions do happen but they are far and few in betweeen. Take Care! postmaster@[127.0.0.1] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Spam booby trap!!! FROM: Mark Allen Framness HOME: framness@.NO_SPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE ^^^^^^^^ To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above address. WORK: m477@NO_SPAM.ugru.uaeu.ac.ae ^^^^^^^ To reply delete the reply to address and delete the NO_SPAM from the above address. HTTP: http://netnet.net/~farmer/index.html To send me e-mail use the above address and delete NOSPAM from the one in the reply field. All standard disclaimers apply. Anyone who says likewise is itching for a fight! Visit my homepage and answer the Trivial Troubles question! /************** NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE ***********************/ For a fee of $500.00 I will proofread your unsolicited commercial e-mail. Mailing me commercial e-mail constitutes acceptance of the above terms. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5m3ptf$lfp@ns2.emirates.net.ae>, Mark Allen Framness <framness@NOSPAM.EMIRATES.NET.AE> wrote: >In message <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> - "Nick Roberts" ><Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> writes: >:> > > >:>These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they >:>invented the science. >:> >:>If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not >:>today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping on' >:>those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give this >:>impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We need >:>our dreamers. > >Yeah sure this is all true, but we can not lose fact of the sight that science >is much closer to EVOLUTION rather than REVOLUTION, you do say this but I want >to pull out that salient point. Scientific revolutions do happen but they are >far and few in betweeen. Read much Kuhn? :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness @ 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Bill Anderson 4 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Bill Anderson @ 1997-05-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Well, as one who spends copious amounts of time in dream states, I must wholeheartedly agree. Software engineering may forever be a mixture of art and science, and if true gains are to made, this is as it should be. Art and science are intertwined to a much greater extent than most realize, or care to admit. Just my 2 cents. Bill Anderson http://www.nakedhoof.com/ Spam protection - send email to brain@nakedhoof.com Nick Roberts wrote: > > All (or almost all) the really great leaps forward in computer > technology > have come not from great, expensive, laboratories, engaged in highly > directed (commercially orientated) research, but instead from a motley > collection of scatter-brained individuals who had _imagination_. > > These 'dreamers' may never have been practical or realistic. But they > invented the science. > > If someone says "what if...?", it is fine to say "nice idea, but not > today", but at the same we should not get into the habit of 'stepping > on' > those who suggest ideas. I don't suppose Robert was trying to give > this > impression at all, but I hope nobody wrongly gets this impression. We > need > our dreamers. > > Nick. > (PS: I get a bit poetic this time of night) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Jeff Carter 1997-05-23 0:00 ` William M.Gordon 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Ralph Silverman [not found] ` <33859489.7FB8@spam.inno <5nplh1$276@nntp.seflin.org> 3 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Jeff Carter @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > In article <5lsjb3$bqc@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > > > I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. > > Huh? > > > Developing a correct program is much more akin to theorem proving than > > engineering activity... > > Ah, programming is not software engineering. Software engineering > is all that other stuff which successful projects do that results in > projects being successful. [Excellent example deleted.] I find that programming and software engineering are often confused, even by those who teach them. Anyone can learn to program, but only about 2% can become software engineers (in my experience). This is not a problem in and of itself. But I find that many organizations think that anyone who can program is qualified to specify requirements, architect and design software, and so on. That is a problem. I also find that many organizations expect a new graduate to be able to do these things "out of the box." The same organizations expect to have to train new graduate engineers in other disciplines for a year or more before they can do the equivalent. -- Jeff Carter PGP:1024/440FBE21 Auntie-spam reply-to; try ( carter @ innocon . com ) "Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time." Monty Python & the Holy Grail ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Jeff Carter @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` William M.Gordon 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: William M.Gordon @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. I'm what I consider to be a software engineer and I only spend about 10-15% of my time writing software. The rest of it is to do with documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports, etc etc. At home though I'm a programmer! ------------------------------ William M. Gordon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` William M.Gordon @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus ` (3 more replies) 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 4 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3385B67B.1439@msim.co.uk.spamstop>, William M.Gordon <gordon@msim.co.uk.spamstop> wrote: >> I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. > > >I'm what I consider to be a software engineer and I only spend about >10-15% of my time writing software. The rest of it is to do with >documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports, >etc etc. At home though I'm a programmer! Hoax is the wrong word, and I must apologize for it. It's rather ``oxymoron'', not unlike ``computer science''. There are those who feel that their software development development position doesn't carry the enough prestige, so they prefer to be called software engineers. It's no different from ``sanitary engineer'', ``certified Novell engineer'' etc. It's a facetious title. I much prefer terms like software developer, software designer: at least these convey what the job is about. I recognize that I don't have a degree in any sort of engineering and certainly don't belong to an association of professional engineers, hence have no claim to a ``P. Eng'' title. If I wanted that, I would have studied engineering and joined the local association, and obtained that iron ring. Real engineers _build_ a product, they don't _write_ it. The end products of real engineering can't be transmitted over data networks nor duplicated ad nauseum onto magnetic media. This realization doesn't make me uncomfortable. I accept the inherent validity and legitimacy of what I do. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5m4idq$oc4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > ...Real engineers _build_ a product, they don't _write_ it. Agreed. > The end products of real engineering can't be transmitted over data > networks nor duplicated ad nauseum onto magnetic media. Disagree. Even electrical, mechanical, and civil engineers produce end products that can be transmitted over networks and duplicated ad nauseum. This is because the end product of the engineering effort is the design, not the actual product. For example an EE might design a new chip, test prototypes, then send the design to Taiwan for production. And I am working on a new philosophy/approach for software engineering which does realize that the "end product" is not the exectuable code. The end product includes the source code, documentation, scripts, make files, test plan, test code, test results, etc. All the pieces that are needed to build the executable, and will be reused in the next build and the one after that. If I can "push a button" to build a release, then I haven't built a release, I have built a release building machine, which is a much more useful thing. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EACHUS.97May23172550@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > In article <5m4idq$oc4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > > > ...Real engineers _build_ a product, they don't _write_ it. > > Agreed. Actually, I don't think I agree. Real engineers typically do not _build_ what they _design_. And this latter bit is very often "writing" of some sort (including sketches, calcualtions, and even CAD excursions). Someone else typically ends up building the thing (this is quite true for prototypes and such as much as for the end mfg result). > nauseum. This is because the end product of the engineering effort is > the design, not the actual product. Hey, that's what I just said - so how come you agreed up there?? > exectuable code. The end product includes the source code, > documentation, scripts, make files, test plan, test code, test > results, etc. Isn't this similar (or even basically the same as) the "reuse whole product" scheme?? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus @ 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck ` (3 more replies) 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-24 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 3 siblings, 4 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: John Bode @ 1997-05-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5m4idq$oc4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote: > In article <3385B67B.1439@msim.co.uk.spamstop>, > William M.Gordon <gordon@msim.co.uk.spamstop> wrote: > >> I would go as far as saying that ``software engineering'' is a hoax. > > > > > >I'm what I consider to be a software engineer and I only spend about > >10-15% of my time writing software. The rest of it is to do with > >documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports, > >etc etc. At home though I'm a programmer! > > Hoax is the wrong word, and I must apologize for it. It's rather ``oxymoron'', > not unlike ``computer science''. > I wouldn't call "computer science" an oxymoron -- most of the *theory* is based on solid mathematical principles. It's just when we try to write something useful that we wind up blowing it. The problem with using the term "software engineering" is that the practice of programming is still more art than science. Computer programs are not like transistors, or gears, or steel I-beams that show up in real-world engineering. We're not dealing with physical principles, but with the codification of thought. Programming (in its current form) is more comparable to composing a symphony or writing a novel than building a bridge or designing a computer chip. And I feel it will always be that way. We can attempt to streamline the process with OOP, with dynamic languages, with visual programming, but it is still a codification of thought, and humans do not tend to think logically. > There are those who feel that their software development development position > doesn't carry the enough prestige, so they prefer to be called software > engineers. It's no different from ``sanitary engineer'', ``certified Novell > engineer'' etc. It's a facetious title. > Regardless of what title I have (analyst, developer, software engineer), I am first and formost a programmer, because that is what I actually do. -- John Bode "Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale" -- Strange Days To email me directly, remove the 'nospam.' from my address. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode @ 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Craig Franck @ 1997-05-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) jfbode@nospam.mail.earthlink.net (John Bode) wrote: >I wouldn't call "computer science" an oxymoron -- most of the *theory* is >based on solid mathematical principles. It's just when we try to write >something useful that we wind up blowing it. The book learning part is easy; it is the practical application that is difficult. Also, I don't think anyone ever came up with a precise mathematical definition or representation of "user friendly". >The problem with using the term "software engineering" is that the practice >of programming is still more art than science. Computer programs are not >like transistors, or gears, or steel I-beams that show up in real-world >engineering. We're not dealing with physical principles, but with the >codification of thought. Programming (in its current form) is more >comparable to composing a symphony or writing a novel than building a >bridge or designing a computer chip. Then you would be a "software author" or "instruction composer". You write software. If you write novels or symphonies, your main goal may be to communicate something of the human experience. You aren't doing that with software. The essence of what you compose would be algorith- matic in nature. (Game programmers may feel different, but designing a game, and coding it are not the same thing. The person who decides what artwork should go in a level is not always the person who wrote the game engine.) As far as comparing yourself to the person who composed a computer chip, I would say your relationship to him would be to evoke behavior from the chip, and system as a whole. You can pick up a chip, or a transistor, and throw it against the wall; you can't pick up "behavior" and physically throw it. Instead, you're a conjurer, or animator, of machines. A sort of re-animator of dead hunks of metal. "With these lines of code, I breath life into this creation. Yes! Yes! It's alive! It's alive!" (Sorry, we just watched "Young Frankenstein"...) >Regardless of what title I have (analyst, developer, software engineer), I >am first and formost a programmer, because that is what I actually do. Which is really a hodgepodge; for example, you must be able to analyze algorithms and develop a strategy to organize your program, and time spent programming. -- Craig clfranck@worldnet.att.net Manchester, NH BBN has the brightest bit-heads on the planet. -- David Goodtree ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck @ 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Laurent Gasser 3 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <jfbode-ya023380002305972146180001@news.earthlink.net> jfbode@nospam.mail.earthlink.net (John Bode) writes: > > Hoax is the wrong word, and I must apologize for it. It's rather ``oxymoron'', > > not unlike ``computer science''. > > > > I wouldn't call "computer science" an oxymoron -- most of the *theory* is It's an oxymoron because the two words don't fit sensibly together. Well, that's the point, and IMO, that is pretty accurate in this case. OTOH, I don't see how "oxymoron" can be plausibly applied to "software engineering". Well, maybe as a joke! (i.e., as currenty done, they don't fit sensibly together). /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Laurent Gasser 3 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) John said <<I wouldn't call "computer science" an oxymoron -- most of the *theory* is based on solid mathematical principles. It's just when we try to write something useful that we wind up blowing it.>> Hard to see how anyone could use that word here, I don't see any intended literary effect in the juxtaposition of the words computer and science. Now it may be that there is a contradiction in terms, but even there the issue to me is not whether there is a contradiction in terms but merely whether CS is indeed a science. My education is in "real" science (all my degrees are in chemistry), and I must say I don't see much in CS that I would normally consider to be science, in particular, there seems to be almost no place for empirical observation and the application of the scientific method to generate new theories matching current observations. To me CS is much more similar to classical engineering fields (which of course are also based on "solid mathematical principles"). P.S. yes, I know, some American dictionaries these days allow the usage of oxymoron to simply mean "contradiction in terms", but it seems a pity to lose its original meaning! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Laurent Gasser 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 more replies) 3 siblings, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Laurent Gasser @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <jfbode-ya023380002305972146180001@news.earthlink.net>, jfbode@nospam.mail.earthlink.net (John Bode) writes: > The problem with using the term "software engineering" is that the practice > of programming is still more art than science. Computer programs are not > like transistors, or gears, or steel I-beams that show up in real-world > engineering. We're not dealing with physical principles, but with the > codification of thought. Programming (in its current form) is more > comparable to composing a symphony or writing a novel than building a > bridge or designing a computer chip. > > And I feel it will always be that way. We can attempt to streamline the > process with OOP, with dynamic languages, with visual programming, but it > is still a codification of thought, and humans do not tend to think > logically. > -- > John Bode > "Paranoia is just reality on a finer scale" -- Strange Days In the domain of codification of thought, computer scientist have made progress. In my daily work, I sometimes encounter very old Fortran 77 code, not respecting the principles of structured programming. Once, it took me one hour on a 100 LOC procedure to be sure that they simply were overlapping a IF-THEN block with a WHILE-REPEAT block thanks a GOTO. It looked something like label_1 CONTINUE CALL read_formatted_file(..., istat) IF (istat == 0) THEN statements : : GOTO label_1 END IF statements The equivalent code in Ada (or in Fortran 90 in my case) could be loop read_formatted_file(..., istat) if (istat /= NoError) then exit; endif; statments : : end loop I am pretty sure that in 15 years from now, a programmer looking at code will immediatly complain if the module is not following the principles of OO or is not designed as an Abstract Data Type. Another science (namely mathematics) has been able to codify thinking. I admit that production of great works has always been a question of creativity. But you rarely see mathematicians fighting against the Aristotelian principles of logic (true or false exclusively, no third case; logic of predicates). -- Laurent Gasser (lga@sma.ch) Computers do not solve problems, they execute solutions. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Laurent Gasser @ 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Alan Bowler 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mc1a2$icf$1@dbs1.sma.ch>, Laurent Gasser <lga@sma.ch> wrote: >I am pretty sure that in 15 years from now, a programmer looking at code will >immediatly complain if the module is not following the principles of OO or is >not designed as an Abstract Data Type. What? I would complain about that _today_! In fact I did complain recently; in a letter to Matt Blaze I criticized the implementation of CFS (cryptographic file system) for having switch() statements branching on the encryption type in several places instead of having the obvious virtual switch (i.e. table of structures containing function pointers) with registered encryption drivers. It's a pain to add a new encryption type, and the inherent assumption that all cipherblocks are eight bytes wide doesn't exactly help either! :( ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Laurent Gasser 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dan Evens 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Alan Bowler 2 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Laurent Gasser wrote: > In the domain of codification of thought, computer scientist have made progress. > In my daily work, I sometimes encounter very old Fortran 77 code, not respecting > the principles of structured programming. Once, it took me one hour on a 100 LOC [snip] > > I am pretty sure that in 15 years from now, a programmer looking at code will > immediatly complain if the module is not following the principles of OO or is > not designed as an Abstract Data Type. I'd say this is more akin to "using acceptable grammar" than applying engineering techniques. Think about "Ugh! Me Kronk" versus "Hello, my name is Scott." Did I engineer that sentence? I applied grammatical rules, but I wouldn't say that it was engineered. The problem I have with the notion of Software "Engineering" is when people say software development is just like building cars. That's just a plain bad analogy. Think about car production. Cars do one thing -- transport. Sure, some can be more fun than others, some may be better at towing, some may carry more people, but they are all basically the same. The parts used to make them are basically the same. Car production is basically doing the same thing over and over and over and over. Things get a bit better and specialized sometimes, but it's still building something to do the same task. I've never written more than one program to do exactly the same task (unless I'm rewriting it to improve it.) Each time I sit down to code something the goal is different. This, in turn, implies the combination of parts needed to construct it, and the order in which those parts are put together is different. (These "parts" I refer to are language constructs, known algorithms and simple reusable objects like containers. Nothing too big, or you're getting into doing the same task again.) Sure, we can use common algorithms and objects such as containers and math packages. But the overall product is not something that has been done before, and therefore, there is no proven, repeatable method to "engineer" that work. This leads to my belief that SW development is an art, rather than a science, and is a highly creative field. As in painting, for example, we use common techniques and styles, and we use standard tools. But we're not painting the same picture over and over. We need creative thought to produce the painting we seek. The same is true for programming. Yes, techniques are useful. Yes, some pieces can be reused. (In a painting, I'd say this relates to the "paint" with which the piece is composed -- the reusable parts are small, atomic chunks like algorithms and simple containers.) But unless you're writing the same program over and over, and can have a "cookie cutter" or mold to produce the code, you're not engineering it. You're creating it. And that's not a bad thing. -- Scott -- Scott Stanchfield (The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of MetaWare) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dan Evens 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Dan Evens @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Scott Stanchfield wrote: > I've never written more than one program to do exactly the same task > (unless I'm rewriting it to improve it.) Each time I sit down to code > something the goal is different. Hrm. Have you never solved the same *kind* of problem twice? Automobiles don't all go *exactly* the same place twice. Never set up a searchable index twice? Never set up a database twice? Never made a linked list twice? And so on. > Sure, we can use common algorithms and objects such as containers and > math packages. But the overall product is not something that has been > done before, and therefore, there is no proven, repeatable method to > "engineer" that work. There are certainly subtasks which appear repeatedly in recognizably identical fashion. This is why books like _Design Patterns_ by Gamma et al. are useful and instructive books to read. The "one off" mind set is clearly counter productive most of the time. -- Standard disclaimers apply. I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail. I don't buy from their ISPs. Dan Evens ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dan Evens @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dan Evens wrote: > > Scott Stanchfield wrote: > > I've never written more than one program to do exactly the same task > > (unless I'm rewriting it to improve it.) Each time I sit down to code > > something the goal is different. > > Hrm. Have you never solved the same *kind* of problem twice? > Automobiles don't all go *exactly* the same place twice. Never > set up a searchable index twice? Never set up a database twice? > Never made a linked list twice? And so on. Sure -- those are the small algorithms and containers to which I refer. These are the pieces that can be reused, but they're small compared to the overall program. When I say I don't code the same thing twice, I overall product. I don't write several C++ compilers, or several database manglement engines... > > > Sure, we can use common algorithms and objects such as containers and > > math packages. But the overall product is not something that has been > > done before, and therefore, there is no proven, repeatable method to > > "engineer" that work. > > There are certainly subtasks which appear repeatedly in recognizably > identical fashion. This is why books like _Design Patterns_ by > Gamma et al. are useful and instructive books to read. The "one off" > mind set is clearly counter productive most of the time. Ahh, but "Design Patterns" are stylistic issues, not solutions to problems. They are very effective (I use them frequently, nice book!) but they don't tell me what code to write to create a word processor. They give me good tools to arm myself to the task. (Think of them as better paint brushes...) Don't get me wrong -- I think we learn good techniques from books and past experience, but I don't think this makes our programs "engineered." Just like an artist who learns new techniques, our works become more and more attractive. -- Scott -- Scott Stanchfield (The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of MetaWare) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dan Evens @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Dean Runzel 1 sibling, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <338B2118.41C67EA6@metaware.com>, Scott Stanchfield <scotts@metaware.com> wrote: >> I am pretty sure that in 15 years from now, a programmer looking at code will >> immediatly complain if the module is not following the principles of OO or is >> not designed as an Abstract Data Type. > >I'd say this is more akin to "using acceptable grammar" than applying >engineering techniques. I'd say that it's more, because the technique has a definite impact on the verifiablity and maintainability of the program. Abstract data types and OO are more than just mere terms. I would agree with that they aren't _engineering_ techniques. >Think about "Ugh! Me Kronk" versus "Hello, my name is Scott." Did I >engineer that sentence? I applied grammatical rules, but I wouldn't say >that it was engineered. I see what you are getting at. Since a program is an utterance in a programming language, it's not a product of engineering but of abstract symbol manipulation. Good point! >The problem I have with the notion of Software "Engineering" is when >people say software development is just like building cars. >That's just a plain bad analogy. Think about car production. Cars do >one thing -- transport. Sure, some can be more fun than others, some >may be better at towing, some may carry more people, but they are all >basically the same. The parts used to make them are basically the same. But we can have reusable components. Different models of car are similar in the same kinds of ways as two different red-black tree implementations. Their parts are not interchangeable, yet they are basically the same. I would not go as far as saying that there are no useful similarities between engineering and software development, or that some of the rigorous techniques in engineering can be applied to software, in particular, the technique of formal verification. In engineering, designs are verified. For example, a truss will undergo analysis in which the tensile or compressive stresses in each member are determined under given load conditions. Nobody will build the bridge without having done such an analysis. To apply this principle of verification to software, every component of a software project should be formally verified for correctness. >Car production is basically doing the same thing over and over and over >and over. Things get a bit better and specialized sometimes, but it's >still building something to do the same task. > >I've never written more than one program to do exactly the same task >(unless I'm rewriting it to improve it.) Each time I sit down to code >something the goal is different. This, in turn, implies the combination >of parts needed to construct it, and the order in which those parts are >put together is different. (These "parts" I refer to are language >constructs, known algorithms and simple reusable objects like >containers. Nothing too big, or you're getting into doing the same task >again.) > >Sure, we can use common algorithms and objects such as containers and >math packages. But the overall product is not something that has been >done before, and therefore, there is no proven, repeatable method to >"engineer" that work. Then again, many engineering designs are also unique. Think of unique structures in the world: dams, buildings, bridges and so on. There are proven, repeatable ways to locally verify the designs, one component at a time. E.g. there are methods to analyze any truss network to see whether it will hold up, but you can still be very creative in designing the truss. In engineering, the creativity is checked by applying laws derived from natural science. <insert some Robert Pirsig quote here about motorcycle gears having buddha nature :) > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Dean Runzel 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > > In article <338B2118.41C67EA6@metaware.com>, > Scott Stanchfield <scotts@metaware.com> wrote: > > > >Think about "Ugh! Me Kronk" versus "Hello, my name is Scott." Did I > >engineer that sentence? I applied grammatical rules, but I wouldn't say > >that it was engineered. > > I see what you are getting at. Since a program is an utterance in a programming > language, it's not a product of engineering but of abstract symbol > manipulation. Good point! Thank you! > > >The problem I have with the notion of Software "Engineering" is when > >people say software development is just like building cars. > >That's just a plain bad analogy. Think about car production. Cars do > >one thing -- transport. Sure, some can be more fun than others, some > >may be better at towing, some may carry more people, but they are all > >basically the same. The parts used to make them are basically the same. > > But we can have reusable components. Different models of car are similar in the > same kinds of ways as two different red-black tree implementations. Their > parts are not interchangeable, yet they are basically the same. > > I would not go as far as saying that there are no useful similarities between > engineering and software development, or that some of the rigorous techniques > in engineering can be applied to software, in particular, the technique of > formal verification. In engineering, designs are verified. For example, a truss > will undergo analysis in which the tensile or compressive stresses in each > member are determined under given load conditions. Nobody will build the bridge > without having done such an analysis. To apply this principle of verification > to software, every component of a software project should be formally verified > for correctness. Guess my point got missed here. In cars, common parts are assembled in pretty much the same manner for any given car. Testing a car is similar from car to car. Same domain for each "overall" test. (Car testers -- please do not be offended -- I'm not saying your job is simple...) (How did we move into testing?) In programming, each new program presents a different domain. In order to test, you have to think in that domain and create new tests within it. Sure, there are similarities, but no "checklist" that says what things to think of when testing a car. (I also believe it has been proven that program correctness is, in general, unprovable. There are simple subsets that can be proven correct, but as program size grows, the probability of proving correctness diminishes.) [snip re I don't write the same thing twice] > > Then again, many engineering designs are also unique. Think of unique > structures in the world: dams, buildings, bridges and so on. There are proven, > repeatable ways to locally verify the designs, one component at a time. > E.g. there are methods to analyze any truss network to see whether it will > hold up, but you can still be very creative in designing the truss. > In engineering, the creativity is checked by applying laws derived > from natural science. <insert some Robert Pirsig quote here about motorcycle > gears having buddha nature :) > Again, unsure how we got into testing, but... From what I recall of my Naval-Architect roomie's ramblings on structural analysis, I think it's somehow related to physics ;) Science vs. art, and ya know where I stand... Anyway, certain parts of programs can be tested with common program testing techniques, just as certain parts of programs implement common algorithms and data structures. But, I think that developing the proper test for a propgram is just as unique as writing the program to begin with. It's a matter of figuring out the right combinations of common tests and new tests to get the "warm fuzzies" or, better still, complete confidence in the correct operation of a program. (In that respect, verification of design of some structures is a creative process as well.) Think about geometric theorem proving. You have a set of "knowns" and an "unknown." You have to think out the correct combination of "knowns" to prove your unknown. No engineering technique can tell you how to combine them, though you can learn useful patters that can help get the job done. (This is the most intellgent discussion of this topic that I've heard in a while -- very interesting...) -- Scott -- Scott Stanchfield MetaWare Incorporated Santa Cruz, CA (The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of MetaWare) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Dean Runzel 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Dean Runzel @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I'm picking up this thread very late but I'd like to join in with a few simple ideas: 1) Engineering is basically the application of techniques to solve problems. One of my EE instructors (long, long ago) said we would be lucky to ever actually use something we learned in college in a real world situation. Instead, he insisted that the school's primary role was to teach problem solving techniques i.e. breaking a problem down, combining techniques, etc. 2) Given the above, Electrical Engineering becomes the practice of applying techniques to solve problems involving electricity, Automotive Engineering => problems in the automotive field, etc. 3) For example, several years ago, no one studied air bags in an Automotive Engineering class because they simply didn't exist. Some engineers were tasked with solving a safety problem and invented the air bag as the solution. 4) So basically my definition of "engineering" includes things like problem statement, requirements, research, brainstorming, designing a solution, implementation, testing and cycling back through the process. 5) Reuse enters this process at the requirements stage (yes, even requirements can be reused) and continues through at least the testing phase. 6) Now, note that my definition makes no reference to hardware, physics, or any particular science. Engineering is a *process*. 7) As such, software engineering is a valid term if and only if a process is followed to solve a problem related to software. That's the simplest explanation I can come up with. Note that I've worked in Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Electro- Optical Engineering, and now Software Engineering in my career. The opinions expressed are my own and belong to no one else. Dean Runzel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Dean Runzel @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Lord Shaman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Dean Runzel wrote: > > I'm picking up this thread very late but I'd like to join in with a > few simple ideas: > > 1) Engineering is basically the application of techniques to solve > problems. One of my EE instructors (long, long ago) said we would > be lucky to ever actually use something we learned in college > in a real world situation. Instead, he insisted that the school's > primary role was to teach problem solving techniques i.e. breaking > a problem down, combining techniques, etc. An enlightened fellow, I must say... That's the kind of teaching we need! RE the rest of your note: I guess the whole "engineering" issue depends of the definition of engineering. By your definitions, I would tend to agree that SW Engineering is a "valid" term. The problem is that by the same definition, one could call a certain field of art "Painting Engineering." (Applying techniques to solve problems involving painted pictures.) I think there's a "line" somewhere between art and science, albeit a very fuzzy and very thick one. They say that half the brain is "logical" while the other half is "creative." I get the feeling that neither half is ever really "asleep." SW Development (as I refer to it) involves several creative processes. But it also involves several logical processes as well. It's a good mix. But like I said in an earlier post, I think the problem comes when people characterize it like a field that clearly falls on the "mechanical production" side of the line. What I mean here is the assembly-line analogy that "we have parts we just plop them together." Personally I don't think SW development can ever become that. And if it did I know I'd be looking for another line of work... - Scott -- Scott Stanchfield MetaWare Incorporated Santa Cruz, CA (The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of MetaWare) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Dean Runzel 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Lord Shaman 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <338D1244.6324@mail.mco.bellsouth.net>, Dean Runzel <drunzel@mail.mco.bellsouth.net> wrote: >I'm picking up this thread very late but I'd like to join in with a >few simple ideas: > >1) Engineering is basically the application of techniques to solve > problems. One of my EE instructors (long, long ago) said we would > be lucky to ever actually use something we learned in college > in a real world situation. Instead, he insisted that the school's > primary role was to teach problem solving techniques i.e. breaking > a problem down, combining techniques, etc. I think that this technology(1) is getting to be too long drawn out and pointless, and has to cease. -- (1) To be clear, by technology I mean ``discourse on an art or arts'', rather than the other definition: ``scientific study of the practical or industrial arts''. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-30 0:00 ` John G. Volan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz says <<I think that this technology(1) is getting to be too long drawn out and pointless, and has to cease.>> Since you are the one who is doing the long-drawn-out'ing, it is certainly simple for you to make it cease :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` John G. Volan 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: John G. Volan @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > Kaz says > > <<I think that this technology(1) is getting to be too long drawn out and > pointless, and has to cease.>> > > Since you are the one who is doing the long-drawn-out'ing, it is certainly > simple for you to make it cease :-) Yes, please. And this is coming from someone who's not allergic to chewing a topic up thoroughly (when it is _warranted_). Watching this thread, I've been mystified as to what, if anything, it has to do with either Ada, C, or C++ (the newsgroups it's been cross-posted to). The participants in this discussion have demonstrated that there is an abundant supply of cerebral power available to be tapped out there, but could we please redirect the sheer torque of this mental dynamo back to leveraging the _technology_ in question here: [insert your favorite language]? :-) Thank you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature (Name => "John G. Volan", Employer => "Texas Instruments Advanced C3I Systems, San Jose, CA", Work_Email => "johnv@ti.com", Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com", Slogan => "Ada95: World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL", Disclaimer => "My employer never defined these opinions, so using " & "them would be totally erroneous...or is that just " & "nondeterministic behavior now? :-) "); ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Dean Runzel 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Lord Shaman 2 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Lord Shaman @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) --------------0C14BC5F91EC4D83173BC443 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ah yes, I remember engineering at high school... Day one, teacher enters the classroom and writes the following on the board: 1. If it looks right, it is right. 2. If it doesn't look right, fudge it until it does. 3. Remember that this will be assembled by an ape, so make it simple to put together. Ah.. those were the days. --------------0C14BC5F91EC4D83173BC443 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML> Ah yes, I remember engineering at high school... <P>Day one, teacher enters the classroom and writes the following on the board: <OL> <LI> If it looks right, it is right.</LI> <LI> If it doesn't look right, fudge it until it does.</LI> <LI> Remember that this will be assembled by an ape, so make it simple to put together.</LI> </OL> Ah.. those were the days.</HTML> --------------0C14BC5F91EC4D83173BC443-- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Laurent Gasser 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield @ 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Alan Bowler 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 2 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Alan Bowler @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5mc1a2$icf$1@dbs1.sma.ch> lga@sma.ch writes: > >Another science (namely mathematics) has been able to codify thinking. I admit >that production of great works has always been a question of creativity. But you >rarely see mathematicians fighting against the Aristotelian principles of logic >(true or false exclusively, no third case; logic of predicates). Maybe. My first year calculus prof refused to cover the proof of the chain rule. He accepted the chain rule, but did not feel the standard proof was valid, and felt we did not have sufficient background to handle the proof he accepted. My 4th year logic prof mentioned some disagreements he had with other schools of logicians. I think the reason that you don't see "mathematicians fighting against the Aristotelian principles" is that they don't consider them "principles", rather, like the chain rule case, they are rules derived from more basic principles, and they do fight over what those are. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Alan Bowler @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <EAwIwE.1LC@thinkage.on.ca> atbowler@thinkage.on.ca (Alan Bowler) writes: > In article <5mc1a2$icf$1@dbs1.sma.ch> lga@sma.ch writes: > > > >Another science (namely mathematics) has been able to codify thinking. I admit > >that production of great works has always been a question of creativity. But you > >rarely see mathematicians fighting against the Aristotelian principles of logic > >(true or false exclusively, no third case; logic of predicates). > > Maybe. My first year calculus prof refused to cover the proof of the > chain rule. He accepted the chain rule, but did not feel the standard > proof was valid "Standard" here refers to the typical way it is handled in first year calculus. I wouldn't say it is not valid - rather more like incomplete, and so, some say, misleading (which is probably why your prof. didn't want to say much about it). > , and felt we did not have sufficient background to handle the proof > he accepted. Unless you were/are a Ramanujan or something, he is quite right. You need quite a bit more advanced analysis or topology beyond first semester Calculus to get there. > My 4th year logic prof mentioned some > disagreements he had with other schools of logicians. > I think the reason that you don't see "mathematicians fighting against > the Aristotelian principles" Actually, IMO "Aristotelian principles of logic" are in general irrelevant to mathematical logicians. Those principles are naive and don't have the necessary rigor to offer much. Of course, what expressivity they have has been easily and much more precisely captured. > from more basic principles, and they do fight over what those are. Indeed. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode @ 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-24 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : I much prefer terms like software developer, software designer: at least these : convey what the job is about. I prefer to be called a Software Engineer. I worked my ass off getting my dregree and I feel I am an engineer of software. : Real engineers _build_ a product, they don't _write_ it. The end products of : real engineering can't be transmitted over data networks nor duplicated ad : nauseum onto magnetic media. Computer Engineers are the ones that designed that network or floppy drive to enable the copying of data. : This realization doesn't make me uncomfortable. I accept the inherent validity : and legitimacy of what I do. The words are a method of differentiating a professional position. We could all call ourselves hackers but most of our customers would tend to look elsewhere. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Fritz W Feuerbacher @ 1997-05-24 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) @ 1997-05-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kaz Kylheku wrote: > There are those who feel that their software development development position > doesn't carry the enough prestige, so they prefer to be called software > engineers. ..... It's a facetious title. It's true that some "software engineers" are falsely so-called, either by themselves or others. And many "real" software engineers sometimes engage in "mere programming" Those facts don't deny either activity "prestige". (Nor is "prestige" worth anything in the grand scheme of things.) > Real engineers _build_ a product, they don't _write_ it. Now you're drifting a little wide. A lot of Civil Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, etc. specify and design _things_ that are actually built by "skilled trades". Explain how that is qualitatively different from specifying and designing _behaviour_ that is performed by computers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Not A Real Engineer (Kaz said so) Tool-smith Wanna-be Send me your advertisements! I'll proofread and return them for only $50.00 (US) per hundred words (plus a small fee per correction). For full details, use a subject line of "Re: Proofreading Offer" on a message of less than ten lines. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) 1997-05-23 0:00 ` William M.Gordon 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Keith Shillington 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) William said <<I'm what I consider to be a software engineer and I only spend about 10-15% of my time writing software. The rest of it is to do with documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports, etc etc. At home though I'm a programmer!>> I can only understand this if you replace "writing software" with "coding". To me documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports etc etc are an *integral part* of what writing software is all about. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Keith Shillington 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-17 0:00 ` brucemo 0 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Keith Shillington @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ahem. Amen. Agreed. In fact, I'd swing out onto the thin ice on the skinny branches and say that to "code" more than that breeches the boundaries between software engineering and, well, let's not mince terms here, hacking. And, home is a great place to hack. I don't want to knock hacking. I love to hack. There's something wonderful about tinkering, like writing HTML in VI; like counting the number of clock cycles in a loop to see if some blindingly fast operation can be made faster; not because it needs to be, but because it can be. This, on the other hand, tends to be inappropriate in an environment where the software you (I, we) are writing ultimately will wind up on someone elses plate to be maintained. Robert Dewar pontificated: | William said: | | <<I'm what I consider to be a software engineer and I only spend about | 10-15% of my time writing software. The rest of it is to do with | documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports, | etc etc. At home though I'm a programmer!>> | | I can only understand this if you replace "writing software" with | "coding". To me documentation, design, version control, project management, | bug reports etc etc are an *integral part* of what writing software is | all about. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Keith Shillington @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-17 0:00 ` brucemo 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <01bc7746$c7475c50$fc00af88@godiva>, Keith Shillington <keith@sd.aonix.com> wrote: >Ahem. Amen. Agreed. > >In fact, I'd swing out onto the thin ice on the skinny branches and say >that to "code" more than that breeches the boundaries between software >engineering and, well, let's not mince terms here, hacking. And, home is a >great place to hack. I don't want to knock hacking. I love to hack. >There's something wonderful about tinkering, like writing HTML in VI; like >counting the number of clock cycles in a loop to see if some blindingly >fast operation can be made faster; not because it needs to be, but because >it can be. This, on the other hand, tends to be inappropriate in an >environment where the software you (I, we) are writing ultimately will wind >up on someone elses plate to be maintained. > >Robert Dewar pontificated: >| William said: >| >| <<I'm what I consider to be a software engineer and I only spend about >| 10-15% of my time writing software. The rest of it is to do with >| documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports, >| etc etc. At home though I'm a programmer!>> >| >| I can only understand this if you replace "writing software" with >| "coding". To me documentation, design, version control, project >management, >| bug reports etc etc are an *integral part* of what writing software is >| all about. I disagree that things like project management are the integral characteristic of engineering. Does this mean that without managers, engineering would not be possible? ;) Here is an interesting little quote from the writing of one Robert Baber: I should emphasize at this poitn that by `software engineering' I mean an approach to the preparation for, and practice of, our vocation which engineers in other fields would recognize as exhibiting basic characteristics typical of their fields. Some of the topics subsumed today under the term `software engineering' do not satisfy this criterion. Systematizing work in a restricted technical sense, using well-honed tools, applying management principles (e.g. relating to project management) to the organization of our work, etc., useful as these may be, do not represent the essence of engineering and are not sufficient to transform our occupation into a professional engineering field. Among other things, practitioners must acquire and apply to their work an extensive knowledge based on a thorough undrstanding of fundamental, immutable principles of a mathematical and theoretical nature and of lasting validity, and they must be willing to accept responsibility for the correctness of their designs. [_The Spine of Software: Designing Provably Correct Software: Theory and Practice_, Baber, Robert Laurence, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1987, P. 14] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Keith Shillington 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-06-17 0:00 ` brucemo 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Richard Turner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: brucemo @ 1997-06-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Keith Shillington wrote: > There's something wonderful about tinkering, like writing HTML in VI; like > counting the number of clock cycles in a loop to see if some blindingly > fast operation can be made faster; not because it needs to be, but because > it can be. This latter case is not just bad software engineering, it is bad hacking :-) bruce ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-06-17 0:00 ` brucemo @ 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Richard Turner 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Spam Hater 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Richard Turner @ 1997-06-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) brucemo wrote ... > Keith Shillington wrote: > > > There's something wonderful about tinkering, like writing HTML in VI; like > > counting the number of clock cycles in a loop to see if some blindingly > > fast operation can be made faster; not because it needs to be, but because > > it can be. > > This latter case is not just bad software engineering, it is bad hacking :-) "Bad"? What's bad about it? If it's bad, what moral principle does it offend? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Richard Turner @ 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Richard Turner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > > There's something wonderful about tinkering, like ... > > > counting the number of clock cycles in a loop to see if some > > > fast operation can be made faster; ... > > > > This latter case is not just bad software engineering, it is bad hacking > > "Bad"? What's bad about it? If it's bad, what moral principle does it > offend? OK, how about "waste of time and money" ? OTOH, as Robert Dewar pointed out, fanatic adherence to "rules" can be counter-productive. If your program spends 98% of its time inside that loop, and it is not meeting its timing requirements, .... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising on them is trespassing! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Spam Hater @ 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Richard Turner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Richard Turner @ 1997-06-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Spam Hater wrote ... > OK, how about "waste of time and money" ? OTOH, as Robert Dewar > pointed out, fanatic adherence to "rules" can be counter-productive. > If your program spends 98% of its time inside that loop, and it > is not meeting its timing requirements, .... But "waste" is at best relative to something else. Bumming instructions out of a loop might be a waste today but might yield some saving (of time or money or both) tomorrow. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Jeff Carter @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Ralph Silverman [not found] ` <33859489.7FB8@spam.inno <5nplh1$276@nntp.seflin.org> 3 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Ralph Silverman @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) con.com> <3385B67B.1439@msim.co.uk.spamstop> <dewar.864448217@merv> <01bc7746$c7475c50$fc00af88@godiva> Organization: SEFLIN Free-Net - Broward Distribution: Keith Shillington (keith@sd.aonix.com) wrote: : Ahem. Amen. Agreed. : In fact, I'd swing out onto the thin ice on the skinny branches and say : that to "code" more than that breeches the boundaries between software : engineering and, well, let's not mince terms here, hacking. And, home is a : great place to hack. I don't want to knock hacking. I love to hack. : There's something wonderful about tinkering, like writing HTML in VI; like : counting the number of clock cycles in a loop to see if some blindingly : fast operation can be made faster; not because it needs to be, but because : it can be. This, on the other hand, tends to be inappropriate in an : environment where the software you (I, we) are writing ultimately will wind : up on someone elses plate to be maintained. : Robert Dewar pontificated: : | William said: : | : | <<I'm what I consider to be a software engineer and I only spend about : | 10-15% of my time writing software. The rest of it is to do with : | documentation, design, version control, project management, bug reports, : | etc etc. At home though I'm a programmer!>> : | : | I can only understand this if you replace "writing software" with : | "coding". To me documentation, design, version control, project : management, : | bug reports etc etc are an *integral part* of what writing software is : | all about. what is hacking : just software engineering without a license ? -- Ralph Silverman z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <33859489.7FB8@spam.inno <5nplh1$276@nntp.seflin.org>]
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... [not found] ` <33859489.7FB8@spam.inno <5nplh1$276@nntp.seflin.org> @ 1997-06-13 0:00 ` Michael Tippach 1997-06-13 0:00 ` Paul Mesken 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Michael Tippach @ 1997-06-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ralph Silverman wrote: [...] > what is > hacking > : > just > software engineering > without a license > ? Still wondering what sort of grass he's smoking. Regards Wuschel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... [not found] ` <33859489.7FB8@spam.inno <5nplh1$276@nntp.seflin.org> 1997-06-13 0:00 ` Michael Tippach @ 1997-06-13 0:00 ` Paul Mesken 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Paul Mesken @ 1997-06-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > > what is > hacking > : > just > software engineering > without a license > ? Darn! You need a *LICENSE* for programming? "I _know_ what partial register stalls are but I want my compiler to know it as well!" usurper@euronet.nl Paul Mesken aka Technocrate ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc6189$b074f500$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Les Hazlewood 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Newsthread integrity Nick Roberts 2 siblings, 2 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Les Hazlewood @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) I've just spent a very disappointing 20 mins trying to find any research that puts C above Ada in this thread. Looking at the last dozen or so posts I couldn't find *any research* on *any topic* !!! Could someone tell me why posters don't start new threads when what they have to say has nothing (or at the most charitable, very little) to do with the current tread title? Les Hazlewood ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Les Hazlewood @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Newsthread integrity Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Jason A Cunningham @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Les Hazlewood (hazlewlj@aston.ac.uk) wrote: : Could someone tell me why posters don't start new threads when what they : have to say has nothing (or at the most charitable, very little) to do : with the current tread title? Topic drift is sort of a tradition in this newsgroup. ---------- Jason Cunningham cunningh@cs.ucdavis.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham @ 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham 0 siblings, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: Stephan Wilms @ 1997-05-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Jason A Cunningham wrote: > > Les Hazlewood (hazlewlj@aston.ac.uk) wrote: > : Could someone tell me why posters don't start new threads when what they > : have to say has nothing (or at the most charitable, very little) to do > : with the current tread title? > > Topic drift is sort of a tradition in this newsgroup. Ehem, *what* newsgroup ? Stephan [posting from c.l.c] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms @ 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jason A Cunningham @ 1997-05-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Stephan Wilms (Stephan.Wilms@CWA.de) wrote: : Jason A Cunningham wrote: : > : > Les Hazlewood (hazlewlj@aston.ac.uk) wrote: : > : Could someone tell me why posters don't start new threads when what they : > : have to say has nothing (or at the most charitable, very little) to do : > : with the current tread title? : > : > Topic drift is sort of a tradition in this newsgroup. : : Ehem, *what* newsgroup ? : : Stephan : [posting from c.l.c] I forgot that I was posting to more than one group. I meant comp.lang.c, although I see this sort of thing in almost all newsgroups. ---------- Jason Cunningham cunningh@cs.ucdavis.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Newsthread integrity 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Les Hazlewood 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham @ 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1 sibling, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 1997-05-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Les Hazlewood <hazlewlj@aston.ac.uk> wrote in article <hazlewlj-2005971331020001@ljh-14.aston.ac.uk>... > I've just spent a very disappointing 20 mins trying to find any research > that puts C above Ada in this thread. Looking at the last dozen or so > posts I couldn't find *any research* on *any topic* !!! > > Could someone tell me why posters don't start new threads when what they > have to say has nothing (or at the most charitable, very little) to do > with the current tread title? Usenet seems to be a highly flammable zone. Always has done. It may, I suppose, be something to do with the (apparent) anonymity of the medium exciting more outspoken responses than would come from people in other circumstances. Doubtless this phenomenon will be the subject of numerous theses in the future ;-) Of course, one suggestion is that if a respondent changes the subject, they should change the subject line. Ne ce pas? Nick. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-15 0:00 Any research putting c above ada? Jon S Anthony 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku @ 1997-05-16 0:00 ` T Wheeley 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1 sibling, 1 reply; 185+ messages in thread From: T Wheeley @ 1997-05-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 15 May 1997, Jon S Anthony wrote: > > > > "We're teaching Computer Science here. If you want engineering, go to > > > > an engineering school." That's the prevailing attitude with many of the > > > > CompSci programs at small liberal arts colleges. They teach the > > > > "science" of programming almost as a subfield of Mathematics. The > > > > > > This is actually very apropos to the problem. Most of what passes as > > > so called "computer science" is just watered down mathematics - > > > discrete mathematics (asymptotic algorithm analysis is fundamentally > > > various techniques of counting, i.e., a bit of combinatorics) and some > > > bits of formal logics (which is where the oft mentioned "halting > > > problem" and such comes from.) Take this away and you don't have much > > > left - unless you have the _application_ of that mathematics, i.e., > > > software engineering. > > > > > > Well, there is the AI camp, but there too, if you look at what much of > > > this is, it's being/been covered by philosophers and CogScis (and > > > often with rather more perspicacity). > > > > Well then let's not bother teaching computer science at all! Why not just > > Sounds like a good idea to me. So how do you intend teaching people to use computers then? Through osmosis? Or do you think that computer science is like car mechanics -- bit of experience and you've got it. After all, we don't need car mechanics degrees as that'd just be physics and mechanical and electronic engineering, wouldn't it? Then again, maybe there's a bit more to computer science; maybe all the people who design cars went to university to study mechanical and electronic and even chemical engineering. > Incorrect analogies. These are all sciences which have their own core > subject which is well delineated. The fact that they borrow from > ideas in other related sciences is irrelevant. The point is that CS > has no such core subject area - _all_ it has is borrowed and then > watered down from other disciplines. Of course it is! CS didn't exist 50 years agao; it had to come from somewhere -- namely maths and electronics. All the early computer scientists were either mathematicians, elec engineers or both. It is a developing field, and I would say the core subject area is programming and algorithm design. Algorithms are like mechanical parts -- designedby specialists in that area, with the *aid* of mathematics, not as a part of maths. > > The fact is that a CS degree combines all these factors into a single > > degree related to the study of computers, and puts them in the correct > > context. > > This would be the start of something that made sense if the core > subject was _engineering software artifacts_. > > > > Yes the idea of dominance in sequences is part of computer science, > > but they way I was taught it in maths is not particularly relvant to > > the complexity of algorithms. > > This sounds irrelevant. _Counting_ is the core of complexity analysis > and that is a part of Combinatorics. _Applying_ the various relevant > results of Combinatorics to _engineering_ problems in software is > perfectly sensible. Attempting to dream up new ways of counting or > more sophisticated ways, or ways that handle new situations or > whatever is Combinatorics - not CS. You are repeating what I was saying. Engineering degrees present Calculus in the correct manner for Engineering, and so Computer Science presents Combinatorics in the relevant manner for alg analysis. > > Unless you have a very good understanding of the principles behind > > the maths in a maths degree, it will take you a lot of experience to > > become a good programmer (e.g. Knuth) > > I seriously doubt this (as it is written). As an example, exactly how > does understanding the ideas behind the proof of Quadratic Reciprocity > help you in "programming"?? How does an understanding of the topology Most people doing a maths degree, especially in the early stages, will not know the principles well enough to extend them to and Ada program, for example. We are taught these things as how it is done, but thinking up `how it is done' is difficult. > of the linear continuum needed to understand a proof of the FTC help > you in "programming"? As far as that goes, how does a understanding > of the notions underlying FTC help? Schroder-Bernstein theorem? No > other engineering discipline needs this sort of understanding. Heck, > no other _science_ needs this level of understanding. Your name-dropping is very impressive. I am truly humbled. > > Of course there is a strong element of theory in CS degrees -- they want > > to get good research students to boost the department's standing against > > other universities, but you would have to have a poor department or be a > > poor student if you didn't pick up some of the fundamentals of good > > software design. > > I think you just crossed over into Jay Martin flamage land - prepare > to be blow torched! :-) I will stand by that paragraph as being self-evident. :sb) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
* Re: Any research putting c above ada? 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? T Wheeley @ 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 0 replies; 185+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-05-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <Pine.SGI.3.95L.970516131141.17326B-100000@tower.york.ac.uk> T Wheeley <tw104@york.ac.uk> writes: > > > Well then let's not bother teaching computer science at all! Why not just > > > > Sounds like a good idea to me. > > So how do you intend teaching people to use computers then? Through Assuming by "use" you mean "program", the answer is simple: this stuff is covered by the engineering discipline for constructing software artifacts (systems, libraries, whatever). > osmosis? Or do you think that computer science is like car mechanics -- No, as I've repeatedly pointed out, I think the non-redundant bits are like engineering. > bit of experience and you've got it. After all, we don't need car > mechanics degrees as that'd just be physics and mechanical and electronic > engineering, wouldn't it? Wrong analogy. I suppose, for car mechanics, you would need to substitute "programmer" or some such. Someone who clearly knows what's going on, but not at the level of the engineer. > > Incorrect analogies. These are all sciences which have their own core > > subject which is well delineated. The fact that they borrow from > > ideas in other related sciences is irrelevant. The point is that CS > > has no such core subject area - _all_ it has is borrowed and then > > watered down from other disciplines. > > Of course it is! CS didn't exist 50 years agao; it had to come from > somewhere -- namely maths and electronics. All the early computer What's that have to do with it? Back in 1953 or so, Aeronautics didn't exist 50 years ago. But just because they found they really could make use of differential equations and discrete analysis and such didn't make them run off thinking they should be developing the _theory_ of this stuff. No, they used the results in the new engineering discipline. > scientists were either mathematicians, elec engineers or both. It is a > developing field, and I would say the core subject area is programming and > algorithm design. Algorithms are like mechanical parts -- designedby > specialists in that area, with the *aid* of mathematics, not as a part of > maths. Hmmm, maybe this is part of the disagreement. I don't see algorithms like mechanical parts at all. I see them as much more like basic results in DiffEq or discrete analysis. First, they can be used completely outside programming or computers at all. So, they clearly have no dependence on these things. Algorithm invention, construction and such has always been, and will always be, a part of mathematics (of particular relevance here is discrete mathemantics). So, what really is the point of saying: hey CS wants to do that too! Second, in programming, they are _used_ in the _design_ of the analog of mechanical parts: components or some such. > > > The fact is that a CS degree combines all these factors into a single > > > degree related to the study of computers, and puts them in the correct > > > context. > > > > This would be the start of something that made sense if the core > > subject was _engineering software artifacts_. > > > > > > > Yes the idea of dominance in sequences is part of computer science, > > > but they way I was taught it in maths is not particularly relvant to > > > the complexity of algorithms. > > > > This sounds irrelevant. _Counting_ is the core of complexity analysis > > and that is a part of Combinatorics. _Applying_ the various relevant > > results of Combinatorics to _engineering_ problems in software is > > perfectly sensible. Attempting to dream up new ways of counting or > > more sophisticated ways, or ways that handle new situations or > > whatever is Combinatorics - not CS. > > You are repeating what I was saying. Engineering degrees present Calculus > in the correct manner for Engineering, and so Computer Science presents > Combinatorics in the relevant manner for alg analysis. Perhaps we are in more agreement than not. Maybe we are even in "violent agreement" and the only problem is that we are just using different terms to refer to the same thing. I guess, the only point left, would be, well then, why not just say CS is really a branch of engineering, put it in the engineering school, and treat it as such. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 185+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-07-21 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 185+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1997-05-15 0:00 Any research putting c above ada? Jon S Anthony 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-15 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc6189$b074f500$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-18 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-05-19 0:00 ` NOT about "c above ada" W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-05-19 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Michael Norrish 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Michael Norrish 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Nick Roberts 1997-05-22 0:00 ` Tom Moran 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-26 0:00 ` David Ray 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-24 0:00 ` jason hummel 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dann Corbit 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-26 0:00 ` tstcroix 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-31 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ralph Silverman 1997-05-27 0:00 ` system 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Rich Miller 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Bryce Bardin 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Nick Leaton 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-03 0:00 ` John Winters 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Martin C. Carlisle 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Joe Charlier 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-04 0:00 ` John Winters 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Jonathan Guthrie 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Anonymous 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Off topic: Crocodiles Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Crocodiles [was: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers] Spam Hater 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Anonymous 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers Jonathan Guthrie 1997-06-11 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Jason Shankel 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-08 0:00 ` John G. Volan 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` SE, Dreamers, and on and on and on W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Software Engineering and Dreamers John G. Volan 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <19970606.49CA70..12B91@ae124.du.pipex.com> 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Lawrence Kirby 1997-06-09 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-10 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-08 0:00 ` Mathew Hendry 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Ed Prochak - Woodland Consultants 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Nick Roberts 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-02 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [not found] ` <01bc7042$609289e0$cb61e426@DCorbit.solutionsiq.com> 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Off topic response to an off topic message--> was:Re: " H. Blakely Williford 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-03 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-09 0:00 ` Ceri Stagg 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Philip Brashear 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 1997-06-10 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-04 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-06-04 0:00 ` �Stephen! 1997-06-05 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Volker Hetzer [not found] ` <01bc7a5b$9ccdd900$21320f9b@mindlin> [not found] ` <5o7ahj$oos$1@news12.gte.net> 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Mukesh Prasad 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Philip Hindman 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-06-18 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Steve Howard 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Anonymous 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-21 0:00 ` Spaceman Spiff 1997-06-23 0:00 ` root 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Alicia Carla Longstreet 1997-06-19 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-06-24 0:00 ` David Thornley 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-06-06 0:00 ` Joe Charlier 1997-06-04 0:00 ` S. Norby 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Mark Allen Framness 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Bill Anderson 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Jeff Carter 1997-05-23 0:00 ` William M.Gordon 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-23 0:00 ` John Bode 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Craig Franck 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-25 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Laurent Gasser 1997-05-26 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Dan Evens 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-27 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Dean Runzel 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Scott Stanchfield 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-30 0:00 ` John G. Volan 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Lord Shaman 1997-05-28 0:00 ` Alan Bowler 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Fritz W Feuerbacher 1997-05-24 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) 1997-05-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Software Engineering is not a hoax Keith Shillington 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Kaz Kylheku 1997-06-17 0:00 ` brucemo 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Richard Turner 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Richard Turner 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Ralph Silverman [not found] ` <33859489.7FB8@spam.inno <5nplh1$276@nntp.seflin.org> 1997-06-13 0:00 ` Michael Tippach 1997-06-13 0:00 ` Paul Mesken 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? Les Hazlewood 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Stephan Wilms 1997-05-21 0:00 ` Jason A Cunningham 1997-05-20 0:00 ` Newsthread integrity Nick Roberts 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Any research putting c above ada? T Wheeley 1997-05-16 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox