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: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: edprochak@mud.imperium.net (Ed Prochak - Woodland Consultants) Subject: Re: Software Engineering and Dreamers Date: 1997/06/03 Message-ID: <5n1aej$993@news.imperium.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 245875946 References: <5mmvgj$61k@squire.cen.brad.ac.uk> <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com> <5n1261$qj6@polo.demon.co.uk> Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Organization: Imperium Internet Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: This has certainly gone off the languages thread, but I'll toss out one comment here. John Winters (john@polo.demon.co.uk) wrote: : In article <19970602.562B58.2B32@ai110.du.pipex.com>, : Mathew Hendry wrote: : >In comp.lang.c++, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: : > : >: <: 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. : >: >> : >: : >: I object to this solution. It smacks of searching for Truth with a : >: capital T. Science is about constructing theories that are consistent : >: with observations, and which have the capability of predicting the : >: outcome of observations not yet made. : > : >Imagine that you have produced a theory about the movements of the planets, : >basing it upon Newtonian dynamics. I provide a competing theory, based upon : >the exploits of invisible crocodiles. : > : >The two theories give exactly the same predictions. : > : >Given your claim that theories are judged only on their consistency with : >observations, : Errr, what else do you imagine they could be judged on? : >how do you choose between these two theories? : You devise tests which should produce different results depending on : which of the two theories is true. Then you apply the tests, observe : the results and discard whichever theories are disproven. : There really is *no* other way you can do it. This is the whole : essence of scientific enquiry. : John : -- : John Winters. Wallingford, Oxon, England. There is one tool used in this situation: Occam's razor. Of two theories which differ in assumptions, but result in the same predictions , and match the same observations, keep the one with the fewer and simpler assumptions. granted real theories are not easily recognizable as clearly simpler than another (consider the fundamental physics theories like "strings" and its competitors) But to at least keep this thread to software, I'd say this is clearly an Engineering type field. Our jobs are to get something working. There obviously is some Computer Science to back us up, even though it is not always codified in clearcut equations. Analysis of algorithms are one tool to help. Reusable components (libraries, objects, whatever) are another part of an Engineering approach. Appropriate programming languages should be another. Enough for now. I've got work to do. ed