Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!rutgers!psuvax1!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!seal.cis.ohio-state.edu!ogden From: ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: recap so far Message-ID: <82173@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 16 Jul 90 18:41:55 GMT References: <268462df> <39400111@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <114@smds.UUCP> <269b7b9d.5643@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <31719@cup.portal.com> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: William F Ogden Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 23 Cliff writes: ... >>Software is such an intangible thing. ...with building models and therefore >>can best be seen as an engineering discipline. >Yes. There is no "construction" (contractor) phase because all you have >to do is copy the software to a new disk. The prototype or model IS your >end product. With other engineering fields, you take the prototype or >model and build an assembly line or hire a contractor (construction). The ability to ship a prototype as a finished product is one of the curses of our field. Imagine where other engineering disciplines [and society] would be if it were possible to clone a breadboard or a prototype car at a cost comparable to that of turning out a production engineered version. A lot of quality is usually added to a product during production engineering. Similarly, fixed price contracting (i.e. non-government :-) creates a certain quality control on architectural and civil enginering products. No contractor is going to bid on a project unless the design product is demonstrably well thought out. Nobody has a comparable concern with the internal details of software. /Bill