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: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: rmiller@WOLFENET.COM (Rich Miller) Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/05/28 Message-ID: <5mgdvq$dcl@ratty.wolfe.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 244442253 References: <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5mfcg8$n1o@corn.cso.niu.edu> <5mfjd9$1q9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: Wolfe Internet Access, L.L.C. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <5mfjd9$1q9@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>, Kaz Kylheku 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