From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Date: 1997/05/25 Message-ID: <5m818t$l8p@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 243702749 References: <33859489.7FB8@spam.innocon.com> <3385B67B.1439@msim.co.uk.spamstop> <5m4idq$oc4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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