Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!odi!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Software "Engineers"
Message-ID: <1991Apr28.023220.345@odi.com>
Date: 28 Apr 91 02:32:20 GMT
References: <3844@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <1991Apr15.230909@ece.arizona.edu> <1991Apr19.152242.8822@odgate.odesta.com>
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Lines: 19
In-Reply-To: jor@odgate.odesta.com's message of 19 Apr 91 15:22:42 GMT

In article <1991Apr19.152242.8822@odgate.odesta.com> jor@odgate.odesta.com (Jor Bratko) writes:

   The above paragraph was just to illustrate a problem that can arise from
   such a definition. You end up being able to call any programming
   "software engineering". It's just a matter of whether it's
   _good_ software engineering or not. So is software engineering any different
   than programming? Does it help to have both terms mean the same thing?

Well, consider the people who designed the Yugo.  When they did this
design, were they engaged in "engineering" or not?  I'd say that even
though the Yugo was a dismal failure (see Consumer Reports), they were
engaging in "engineering".  Some of it was pretty clear poor
engineering, but it was engineering.  Similarly, what many people here
are interested in is not the promotion of "software engineering" but
the promotion of "good software engineering".  There is some
disagreement on how to judge "good", and more disagreement about means
of achieving goodness.

Is the discussion about the meaning of "software engineering" over yet?