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: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... (was Re: Any research putting c above ada?) Date: 1997/05/25 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 243796509 Distribution: world References: <33859489.7FB8@spam.innocon.com> <3385B67B.1439@msim.co.uk.spamstop> <5m4idq$oc4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > In article <5m4idq$oc4@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > > > ...Real engineers _build_ a product, they don't _write_ it. > > Agreed. Actually, I don't think I agree. Real engineers typically do not _build_ what they _design_. And this latter bit is very often "writing" of some sort (including sketches, calcualtions, and even CAD excursions). Someone else typically ends up building the thing (this is quite true for prototypes and such as much as for the end mfg result). > nauseum. This is because the end product of the engineering effort is > the design, not the actual product. Hey, that's what I just said - so how come you agreed up there?? > exectuable code. The end product includes the source code, > documentation, scripts, make files, test plan, test code, test > results, etc. Isn't this similar (or even basically the same as) the "reuse whole product" scheme?? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com