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: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: cgrussel@bradford.ac.uk (Vibrating Bum-Faced Goats) Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/05/30 Message-ID: <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 244998941 References: <5m57nu$7si@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu> <5md1fl$9f4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Organization: University of Bradford Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Kaz Kylheku (kaz@vision.crest.nt.com) wrote: : In article <5mcp5o$ei7$3@news.cc.ucf.edu>, : 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. : 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.