Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!spf
From: spf@clyde.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: software engineering
Message-ID: <7802@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: Fri, 27-Mar-87 12:00:52 EST
Article-I.D.: clyde.7802
Posted: Fri Mar 27 12:00:52 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Mar-87 11:48:13 EST
References: <340@ndsuvax.UUCP> <141@tijc02.UUCP> <1285@rti-sel.UUCP> <4414@utah-cs.UUCP>
Sender: nuucp@clyde.ATT.COM
Reply-To: spf@bonnie.UUCP (Steve Frysinger)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 65

In article <4414@utah-cs.UUCP> shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs) writes:
>In article <1285@rti-sel.UUCP> wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) writes:
>>In article <141@tijc02.UUCP> djm408@tijc02.UUCP (David Marks         ) writes:
>>>     It is my belief that computing has matured to the point that Software
>>>Engineering should be split off from Computer Science as separate a discipline.
>>>This is analogous to the split between chemistry and chemical engineering.
>I doubt anybody disagrees that there is a distinction, and that students
>can follow either path, but there are some practical difficulties with the
>split.

I write:

Before I start, let me say that one of my degrees is in Computer Science.
Now, that behind me, I've come to believe that there is no such thing.

You see, though I know there are more liberal definitions, I believe
that science is the study of what IS by application of the scientific
method (which I will not belabor, but which is intrinsically
empirical and NOT inventional).  I've studied some science.
My undergrad and early grad work were in physics, where we studied
the properties of the Universe with the tools of observation and logic
(the latter usually using the language called mathematics).
Since my "Computer Science" MS, I undertook graduate work in
psychology, especially psychophysics (also a misnomer, I suppose).
Psychology is today where physics was in Newton's time, so in addition
to being exciting and dynamic, it provides insight into the process
of "doing science".  Again, we study what IS by observation and logic.

Now, I'm led to reconsider what "computer scientists" do.  Do they
"discover" algorithms that are floating in Plato's Ideal realm?
Then they are like mathematicians who "discover" new algebras.
And maybe this is what some folks mean by science.  But I believe
(as I've already hinted) that mathematics is a language, and not
a science, mostly because I don't think its entities occupy space
in Plato's ideal realm (or anyone else's, for that matter).  This
is not intended to denegrate mathematics; I simply mean to put
it in perspective.

I think that without TOO much handwaving I could make a convincing
argument that most (if not all) of what "computer scientists" do
(even those researchy folks) can be reduced to algorithms (yes, even
language theory, though that leans heavily on abstract algebra too).

So, my claim is that there is no computer "science" -- there is
computer engineering, some research and some applied.

To extend the analogy put forward (above) by David Marks, I think this
is just like Chemical Engineering -- which includes both research
endeavors as well as design.  In fact, in my previous position at
Exxon, MANY of the researchers in Corporate Research were "Chemical
Engineers" investigating chemical processes; this seems much like folks
at Bell Labs area 11 investigating computing processes.  And it
was (and is) different than the "Chemists" studying chemical
principles.

Maybe my argument doesn't matter; I've still identified "research"
and "applied" as two courses of effort.  But I think that if there's
a renaming on the horizon, maybe we ought to take the opportunity
to correct what I believe is a misnomer: Computer Science.

Thoughts, anyone?
Steve Frysinger
***
Thou art beside thyself.  Much learning hath made thee mad.
		-- Festus (the one in Acts, not Dodge City!)