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: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/05/27 Message-ID: <5mfjd9$1q9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 244355048 References: <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu> <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5mfcg8$n1o@corn.cso.niu.edu> Organization: Prism Systems Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5mfcg8$n1o@corn.cso.niu.edu>, wrote: >kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: >>Fritz W Feuerbacher 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.