Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!meaddata!dedek
From: dedek@meaddata.com (Mike Dedek)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <4315@meaddata.meaddata.com>
Date: 13 May 91 19:07:29 GMT
References: <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com> <35177@athertn.Atherton.COM> <1991May9.124559.2924@ssd.kodak.com>
Sender: usenet@meaddata.com
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 44

In article <1991May9.124559.2924@ssd.kodak.com>, nichols@ssd.kodak.com
(Tim Nichols (37894)) writes:
 <<stuff about photography/compsci parallels deleted>>
|> 
|> You make a valid point, but I contend that filmmaking is the wrong analogy to 
|> apply.  Films largely try to educate and/or entertain.  The vast majority of
|> software does not (excepting video games and the like).  A good film should
|> be memorable; good software should not even be noticed. (someone stated this
|> in an earlier thread, but I can't remember who)
|> 
|> Given that the vast bulk of software we build and use is dedicated to helping 
|> us work smarter and faster, to have it be memorable would be cumbersome.
|> 
|> I contend that a better anaology would be the role of a building architect.
|> A building architect is aware of the technical aspects of construction, but 
|> his design effort is focused on how people interact with the building.  In a
|> similar vein, the software architect should be focused on how people interact
|> with the system.  Once the architecural design has been completed, the 
|> technical engineers will apply their processes to insure that the building 
|> (or software system) won't fall down.
|> 
|> The role of the software architect was missing from my original post.  This 
|> person requires a unique blend of engineering, artistic, and cognitive 
|> awareness skills to design systems which interact well with people, and
|> are still readily engineered from a system structure perspective

While your point is largely true, consider the science of photography
for astronomy or military applications.  Although many consider the
end result 'art', the process of obtaining these pictures (e.g.,
satellite pictures of military installations in detail, night-vision,
that big telescope NASA just sent up) is very scientific.  I submit
that compsci is similar to photography; there will be applications
which are more 'scientific' and those which are more 'artistic'.  The
line differentiating these is blurred.  The really great breakthroughs
in compsci will be at least partly artistic, because they will be so
radically different from the status quo that some creative effort will
be necessary.  

I could digress for pages, but I won't.

| I'm too lazy to create a .sig file, so I just type this in every
| time I mail!
| Opinions are solely those of the author.
| Have fun!