Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!rsd
From: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Theory vs. Practice in CS Education
Message-ID: <5046@ae.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 89 17:47:34 GMT
References: <4967@ae.sei.cmu.edu> <1989Nov17.090716.11068@cs.eur.nl> <4994@ae.sei.cmu.edu> <1411@cs.rit.edu>
Reply-To: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito)
Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 35

In article <1411@cs.rit.edu> mjl@cs.rit.edu (Michael Lutz) writes:

>The point is that the study of compilers (or whatever) may give you
>insights and models that are useful in the specification and
>development of software.  I think you're taking an overly restrictive
>view of engineering, as if the form of the inquiry is somehow
>independent of the content of the final product.  

Exactly the opposite is what I've been saying -- the final form of the
product is precisely what is seen by the engineer.  Without known models,
this is impossible.


>I don't think one can study any branch of engineering in a vacuum,
>totally devoid of relevant conceptual models that give substance to the
>discipline.  

See above.  But one needs more than the models in order to be able to use
them.


>There's no sense being exact about something if you don't even know what
>you're talking about.
>John von Neumann.

Please see the rest of Lord Kelvin's quote.  What if it's being exact about
what you don't know?


Rich
-- 
When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers,
you know something about it.
Lord Kelvin						      rsd@sei.cmu.edu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------