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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: Craig Franck Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/05/25 Message-ID: <5m859v$2qr@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 243712989 References: <01bc66fa$ee7910e0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <5m57nu$7si@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: kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) wrote: >In article , >Robert I. Eachus 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