Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!prls!philabs!ttidca!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidca.TTI.COM (The Polymath) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Is it Art or is it Engineering Message-ID: <1879@ttidca.TTI.COM> Date: 8 Feb 88 22:03:28 GMT References: <6879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 30 Keywords: Art Engineering Tolerances In article <6879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> bks@ALFA.berkeley.edu (Brad Sherman) writes: >There seems to be a perception among programmers that >current software development is not really "engineering." > >What do "real" engineers do that we do not? Engineers typically work with known quantities and predictable results. What they're doing has usually been done before and is well understood. (e.g.: We've built a lot of office buildings. We know how long it takes to put up girders and floors and wiring. There are tables of beam sizes and riveting codes, etc.). That's why PERT charts work so well with engineering projects. Software designers/builders, on the other hand, are usually doing something that hasn't been done before. If it had been, why do it again? Why not just copy it? (It's a bit difficult to copy an office building (-: ). Software is a more creative, seat-of-the-pants endeavor than "hard" engineering. There are no tables of beam strengths or fluid flows to refer to. There are standard references for limited types of algorithms and these generally are copied rather than built from scratch. But the reason for any new software project is to make a computer do something it hasn't done before. There are many unknowns in such an undertaking, which is why the PERT model doesn't fit software development very well. There's still some art to it. -- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Illegitimati Nil Citicorp(+)TTI Carborundum 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 452-9191, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe