ENvironmentally Friendly Inter City Aircraft powered by Fuel Cells

On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
wrote:

Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
equations?"

Knuth

A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
the question wrt programming.

If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.

Don

Don Tuite wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
wrote:

Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
equations?"

Knuth

A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
the question wrt programming.

If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.

Don

K&R isn't even close. Knuth is getting closer. I personally think that
Nicklaus Wirth has come the closest to software engineering, but even he
is more of a computer scientist than an engineer and much the same holds
for Dijkstra.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Don Tuite wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
wrote:

Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
equations?"

Knuth

A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
the question wrt programming.

If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.

Don

K&R isn't even close. Knuth is getting closer. I personally think that
Nicklaus Wirth has come the closest to software engineering, but even he
is more of a computer scientist than an engineer and much the same holds
for Dijkstra.

Edgar Codd based his relational database model on predicate logic and set
theory. I'd call it the rough equivalent of Maxwell's equations in the
database world. Databases are pretty fundamental to a lot of applications,
so I don't think it is that much of a stretch.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Don Tuite wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007 19:33:28 -0600, "Jon Woellhaf"
wrote:

Matt Whiting asked ... "What are the software equivalent of Maxwell's
equations?"

Knuth
A stretch. "GOTO Seen Harmful"? K&R? I don' think that dog's gonna
hunt. You've gotta get down to Shannon, which I don't think answers
the question wrt programming.

If Swain had a contrary opinion, I'd listen to it.

Don
K&R isn't even close. Knuth is getting closer. I personally think that
Nicklaus Wirth has come the closest to software engineering, but even he
is more of a computer scientist than an engineer and much the same holds
for Dijkstra.

Edgar Codd based his relational database model on predicate logic and set
theory. I'd call it the rough equivalent of Maxwell's equations in the
database world. Databases are pretty fundamental to a lot of applications,
so I don't think it is that much of a stretch.

Yes, I would tend to agree that the designer of the relational database
was engineering software or at least coming very close. However, I
disagree that the folks that use relational database and design
applications for them are performing engineering.

Unfortunately, what is called software engineering is seldom such. I'm
sure there are a handful of people in the world, but not many compared
to the more traditional engineering disciplines.

Matt

I agree software development isn't engineering, even though I've held the
title of Software Engineer.

In engineering, it's possible to design something (beam, bolt, resistor,
whatever) that's 50% stronger than required. I'd love to know how to design
software that's 50% more reliable than required.

I call myself a Software Architect.

Designing good software is more difficult than practicing any engineering
discipline.

Jon Woellhaf wrote:
I agree software development isn't engineering, even though I've held the
title of Software Engineer.

In engineering, it's possible to design something (beam, bolt, resistor,
whatever) that's 50% stronger than required. I'd love to know how to design
software that's 50% more reliable than required.

Yes, that is one of the key differences.


I call myself a Software Architect.

Sounds very appropriate.


Designing good software is more difficult than practicing any engineering
discipline.

I don't disagree having written software and designed circuits and now
designing structures (got bored with the electrical/computer world).
And this is exactly the reason that most engineers object to others
using the term engineering inappropriately. Computer science has not
yet progressed to the stage where one can make predictions of
performance in advance and, better yet, design to a specific performance
target. That is one of the essential elements of engineering.

Personally, I object to people using the term engineering just to gain
credibility that aren't willing to earn. When software is designed and
constructed with the precision, predictability and reliability of
products from real engineering disciplines, then I'll be happy to
welcome software into the engineering realm.

I doubt, however, that this is likely anytime soon for the simple reason
that software really is different from most other technical disciplines
and in many ways is as close to writing a novel as to designing a structure.

That aside, I personally believe if people in the software world would
spend as much effort on developing their craft as they do on trying to
claim an engineering title they haven't earned, they might actually
progress the discipline to the point that it would have credibility on
its own.

One of the reasons I left the software world in the mid 90s is the
prevailing culture of mediocrity. I was always researching techniques
to improve software reliability and predictability, looking at more
robust languages such as Ada, more reliable operating systems, etc., but
my colleagues much preferred languages such as C and OSes such as
Windows that have holes you can drive a truck through. After several
years of being the only one in the department who really cared about
advancing the profession rather than being a cowboy, I decided to move
into a real engineering discipline. I haven't looked back and I see no
indication of any real culture change in the industry.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote
... One of the reasons I left the software world in the mid 90s is the
prevailing culture of mediocrity.

Unintentionally encouraged by management, in my experience.

I was always researching techniques to improve software reliability and
predictability, looking at more robust languages such as Ada, more
reliable operating systems, etc., but my colleagues much preferred
languages such as C and OSes such as Windows that have holes you can drive
a truck through.

I'm able to write lousy programs in both Ada and C. g