Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpopd!daves
From: daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dave Straker)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <36650010@hpopd.pwd.hp.com>
Date: 13 May 91 16:28:04 GMT
References: <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard CCG-PWD, UK.
Lines: 23

> The thing that originally attracted my attention is the title of this
> thread:  Art vs. Engineering.  It is, simply, wrong.  Engineering IS
> art.  Good engineering is good art and bad engineering is bad art.
> There is, and can be, no versus to the relationship between art and
> engineering.
> 
> Chris Prael

This is probably a matter of interpretation. I would define Art as
being based in 'feelings' and Science as been based in 'rules'.
If there is a key word I would use for Engineering, it would be
'pragmatic'. Do what works. This would tend to push it towards
the Science end of the spectrum, although there are still elements
where 'feeling' is appropriate - such as in the design of a user interface.

Perhaps where confusion is caused is when feelings are based in
rules, for example where an engineer does what 'feels right', and
is right - it feels right because he has internalised the rules to
the point where he does not or even cannot describe them.

Dave Straker            Pinewood Information Systems Division (PWD not PISD)
[8-{)                   HPDESK: David Straker/HP1600/01
                        Unix:   daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com