Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!emory!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!abvax!iccgcc!kambic
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (George X. Kambic, Allen-Bradley Inc.)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Art vs. Engineering
Message-ID: <4673.283be129@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Date: 23 May 91 20:35:05 GMT
References: <1991May6.165902.2116@ssd.kodak.com> <36650010@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> <1991May16.203518.22420@xstor.com>
Lines: 19

In article <1991May16.203518.22420@xstor.com>, iverson@xstor.com (Tim Iverson) writes:
> In article <36650010@hpopd.pwd.hp.com> daves@hpopd.pwd.hp.com (Dave Straker) writes:
[...]
> There is no confusion.  If a programmer uses a methodology, he is an
> engineer.  If not, then he is an artist (or a hack :-).  The difference is
> that good engineering can be done by anyone that understands the
> methodology, whereas good art can only be created by someone with talent
> (i.e. innate understanding of both work and medium).

Don't think so.  Good engineering cannot be done by anyone who understands the
methodology, unless you mean understanding to include applications knowledge,
experience, understanding of the scientific method, and a knowledge of history,
for a minimum.  Secondly, good art (at least in some eyes) can be created by
good engineers but this is probably because they understand their work and
their medium.  The F-4 is a work of art, done by engineers who knew these
things.  

GXKambic
standard disclaimer