Xref: utzoo comp.object:3248 comp.software-eng:5406 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pa.dec.com!jrdzzz.jrd.dec.com!tkou02.enet.dec.com!jit345!diamond From: diamond@jit345.swstokyo.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: <1991Apr19.052836.15679@tkou02.enet.dec.com> Date: 19 Apr 91 05:28:36 GMT References: <1899:Apr1206:12:4991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr12.201053.18348@visix.com> <764@uecok.ECOK.EDU> Sender: usenet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (USENET News System) Reply-To: diamond@jit345.enet@tkou02.enet.dec.com (Norman Diamond) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo Lines: 23 In article <764@uecok.ECOK.EDU> bw@uecok.ecok.edu (Bill Walker CS Dept. Chairman) writes: > Prof A: What is "software engineering"? > Prof B: The study of large programs. > Prof A: What is a large program ? > Prof C: Any program we do not understand. > Prof A: By this logic, software engineering > is the study of programs we do not > understand. How do we escape this > dilemma ? > Prof D: "Don't call it 'software engineering!'" Wrong conclusion, I think. Engineering IS (partly) the study of situations that are incompletely understood. If a bridge will be a clone of an existing bridge (if it were possible to know that without having to do any studies to change unknown information into known information), then there will be no engineering work involved. If the conditions are slightly different from anywhere else, if study has to be done to understand the exact situation and to decide which scientific laws to apply to each part of the problem, that is engineering. -- Norman Diamond diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.