Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!eos!eugene From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Information Systems is an Engineering Discipline Message-ID: <5328@eos.UUCP> Date: 4 Oct 89 07:05:23 GMT References: <1142@svx.SV.DG.COM> <34399@regenmeister.uucp> <5296@eos.UUCP> <8160@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <8161@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif. Lines: 96 In article <8161@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> varnau@cs.purdue.edu (Steve Varnau) writes: >> >>Here at Purdue University, I attended a talk about "Software Windtunnels" >>by Dr. D. Comer. > >Oooops, That was Dr. Richard DeMillo, not Dr. Comer. Distribution: comp.edu ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ actually this isn't a followup field. DeMillo: Parnas's student who recently defended SDI at Stanford with Parnas on the opposite side. Actually, I have given some thought to this. I've written up a couple of pages of notes on the wind tunnel analogy. We have 24 (momentary 23) of the world's largest wind tunnels here. But I'm bad about writing real papers. Wind tunnels are kind of a neat laboratory for aerodynamics. The Wright Bros. invited the wind tunnel, and it probably gave them the edge in developing airplanes. Wind tunnels are now reaching their limits because their flows are fair too stable, far too linear. Cross flows, turns, dynamic things are difficult to simulate. I have thought lots about all kinds of other scientific apparatus: telescopes, refineries, reactors, "atom smashers," "tokomacs," lasers, etc. I've thought lots about other sciences and that other sciences don't regard "computer science" as a science, notably those which fund CS. My interest came as a result of a NASA internal effort to improve its use of computers. Efforts were directed by NASA HQ because we had the usual major computers problems: the software problem, the database, problem, and the performance problem. In time I became somewhat disillusioned. But about a year ago, I started thinking about aand have given 3 seminars on the topic of what I regard as "Empirical Compuert Science." This is a topic lacking books, having few articles, no methodology, etc. I've give the talk at OSU (Oregon), UCD, and UCSC. I'm giving it to a tough audience at Livermore in 4 weeks. Physicists: "real scientists" 8). Basically, my thesis notes that CS and SE are traditionally viewed as an offshoot of mathematics. True CS can use a lot more mathematical technique, but theory isn't enough. (Good Ref D. Knuth, AMM 1985) We sometimes spend too much time with math. It's the "Conservation Laws" which make physics so powerful. We don't have these, but I think we must learn two important things from other less than mathematical sciences: 1) we must learn how to be better observers, we must not leave this to chance as we do now, and 2) we must learn experiment design techniques, not from the statisticans, but from simple logic. I turn back to a good book on 2) from Campbell and Stanley. There are more elaborate books, but few simpler, and we have to start at a simpler level. We have a somewhat perverted idea of "Control" in computing which other sciences lack. It's both good and bad. The idea that a "Program" is an "experiment" is a wrong one. I think Feigenbaum said this originally. The seminar "ECS" covers these things. I've left out the section on the role of "Observation." I've no articles on this topic, but I'm trying to formulate something. I draw on some of the original ideas which got systems analysis started. I think computer scientists probably spend a little too much time with their own kind and need to mix with people in other disciplines. I do see other sciences coming in and learning CS principles, and I do get some moral support outside. Generally I am hopeful, some optimism, for the funding fo CS and SE, but I think we have something of an elitist/snobbish view. A tiny bit too academic (going back to Turing in fact). There are other consequences in education with the trend to computing and other sciences. I see the lack of interest in the more "experimental" sciences: chemistry: few chemistry sets, biology: yes we have to cut up a few frogs. We in CS are unfortunately a little too concern with minute details without seeing grander problems. So I have to spend time convincing physicists, chemists, geologists, that we need funding. (If you read Feynman's "Surely Your Joking," you will know he "sat at the tables" of other disciplines. We must do this, too.) If this sounds interesting, and I should publish, you are right, but part of my problem is the difficulty in bouncing ideas off on NASA people, we are kind of a jaded lot. NASA also has some strict ideas about the release of written information, and they have not discovered networks. They are worried about foreign governments, etc. Anyways, my problem not yours. Net flaming is easier. And I have to do my other work with priority. Hope you guys make it an engineering discipline. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die.