Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!panda!teddy!svb
From: svb@teddy.UUCP (Stephen V. Boyle)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Is it Art or is it Engineering (Clarifications)
Summary: What I meant was ...
Keywords: Art Engineering Tolerances
Message-ID: <4620@teddy.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 88 19:59:27 GMT
References: <6879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <4618@teddy.UUCP> <635@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>
Reply-To: svb@teddy.UUCP (Stephen V. Boyle)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 41

In article <691@unm-la.UUCP> claborn@unm-la.UUCP (Joe Claborn) writes:
>... deleted discussion of what constitutes a "best solution" ...
>
>The best software to a solve a specific problem may be a piece of 'canned'
>software or it may be developed 'in-house'. In either case if there
>is not engineering involved in the decision then the solution won't be
>'best'. 

I agree with your criteria. My point was that things which are well-defined are
not saved and re-used *in the general case*.  All engineering, including the
example I used of heat exchanger design, involves original work.  It may be
that more or fewer parameters or "building blocks" may be available, but sooner
or later it comes down to the engineer doing their part.  If there was no new
engineering to be done, then the customer would (should) have bought an off-
the-shelf solution.  My point was that not many software building blocks exist,
except for relatively trivial functions, which is part of the reason I feel 
that software engineering today is more art than engineering.

In article <635@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>In article <4618@teddy.UUCP>, svb@teddy.UUCP (Stephen V. Boyle) writes:
>> Sure, there are some examples of "canned" routines and algorithms (quicksort
>> is what immediately comes to mind)
>
>Oh dear, I do hope not.  Everybody seems to be hypnotised by the NAME
>"quicksort".  If you check a good reference (Knuth AofP, for example)
>you'll find that quicksort is ***not*** a good general-purpose sort!

Agreed. The statement was intended to reference a common, relatively well-
known case, without making any value judgements about its use or suitability.

So, how can software development become more like engineering? Beats me. At 
this point all I have is vague uncertainties and "sort of - kind of" thoughts
about what could be done different. But I think the comparisons with more
"traditional" engineering disciplines can display some interesting parallels, 
along with divergences, regarding engineering practice.

-- 
... !{decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,masscomp}!genrad!svb
Steve Boyle  
GenRad Inc,  Production Test Division
MS 06, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742