Xref: utzoo comp.object:3294 comp.software-eng:5431 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: Date: 22 Apr 91 23:52:19 GMT References: <3201:Apr705:40:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr16.124522.16592@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1991Apr18.013537.27947@isc.rit.edu> Sender: news@Rational.COM Followup-To: comp.object Distribution: na Lines: 36 >> If we were strictly engineers, >>we could down a catalog of routines and, by cleverly sticking them >>together, build a program. Isn't that what we DO? We gather together small chunks (e.g. various library routines) and big chunks (e.g. X-Windows), and paste together a system. At least, that's what a software engineer does--I've known a lot of hackers who want to start from a blank sheet of paper each time... >>The difference is that programmers are >>tasked to build new components if they can't find one in the own catalog >>of program components. As are all other engineers. Consider four-wheel steering. It didn't exist until a few years ago. Someone had to design it. It was built out of as many low-level units as possible (e.g. universal joints), but it was still a brand-new mechanism for automobiles. I can think of examples for any engineering discipline you'd care to name. >How many CEs build bridges out of self-designed >>components? If bridges are not very creative avenues for civil engineers, it is because civil engineering is a more mature discipline than software engineering. It is NOT because there is some fundamental difference between the two. Consider this: until the 1800's, HALF of all bridges built fell down. Why? Because the principles of civil engineering were not well-understood, and so much of it was empirical and artistic: more craft than science. It is different now, but I bet for a while there were members of the old guard who protested loudly that civil engineering was not a science and never could be...just like hackers proclaim loudly now. -- * The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software * * engineering, in which case I borrowed them from incredibly smart people. * * * * Rational: cutting-edge software engineering technology and services. *