Xref: utzoo comp.object:3143 comp.software-eng:5335 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!visix!news From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: <1991Apr12.201053.18348@visix.com> Date: 12 Apr 91 20:10:53 GMT References: <3201:Apr705:40:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1899:Apr1206:12:4991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: news@visix.com Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA Lines: 32 brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: Every working definition of ``engineering'' appears to exclude computer science. Indeed. A large software project is, in my experience, more like a book than it is like a building. Do we call novelists "prose engineers?" Do we call movie producers "audio-visual entertainment engineers?" No, and I don't think we should. My business card says "software engineer," and I do what is usually called "software engineering," but I think that it's a misnomer. I think that things like "software author," "algorist," "software designer," "software artist" (by analogy to "graphic artist" or "commercial artist"), or "software architect" would be better, but currently they just confuse people. People think they know what "software engineer" means. Part of my problem is that, put simply, I don't think we know enough about what software is to make it into an engineering discipline or a trade. Software is so mutable and responsive that I can't think of its creation and manipulation as anything except an artistic disclipline. When I interview someone I'm interested in hiring, I'd rather see a portfolio of their work than what certificates they've earned. -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- "In all my life, I have prayed but one prayer: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." --Voltaire