Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!rsd
From: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <25170@as0c.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 15:05:09 GMT
References: <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com>
Reply-To: rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 29


Some interesting points, Tim, but I believe that you have one thing exactly
backwards:

 In article <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com> Tim Nichols writes:

 >Software Scientists will fill the artisans role by continually pushing
 >the envelope.  They will be the technology innovators.
 >
 >Software Engineers will apply the state-of-the-art technology to
 >products and processes with precision and quality.

In traditional engineering disciplines, the engineers have pushed the state
of the practice with both innovative technology and innovative applications.
The engineers backed off only when the technology failed.  It was always
left to the scientists to explain (sometimes many years later) why a
particular technology succeeded or failed.  Consider bridges and the
airplane.

Current software science will not be improved without good engineering
examples (successes and failures).


Rich
-- 
   "Please keep in mind that the ultimate goal [of hi-fi] is the
   reproduction of art, and that the invocation of science, while a neat
   parlour trick, is often unnecessary, flawed, and unreasonable."
   --  name mercifully withheld...                            rsd@sei.cmu.edu