[PLUG] Slightly OT: PCC software engineering program

[Jeff Schwaber]

On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 19:44, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Jeff Schwaber wrote:
> > Ah, but Software Engineering _would be_ the domain of Computer Science,
> > if it were empirical and could therefore be studied theoretically (and
> > therefore tested empirically).
> >
> > In fact, many CS programs have attempted to do this. The fact that they
> > haven't succeeded says something.
> 
> All you're saying here is that Software Engineering isn't a science.
> 
> Phew.  That's some bold philosophical statement!  You're way out on a limb
> on that one!

true. =)

> Engineers aren't scientists.  Teachers aren't scientists.  Farmers are not
> scientists.  I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Ah...actually, Engineering is based on the science of physics. It isn't
a science, because there's intuition involved, but it is heavily based
on the science of physics. Same with farming and agricultural science,
although to a lesser extent.

Teachers aren't scientists, and educational science doesn't really
exist, which may account for there being such a huge discrepancy between
the quality of teachers. Same with Software Engineers, because it's not
truly based on Computer Science, or Software Engineering Science, or
whatever you'd call it. It's based on theories which everybody disagrees
about. At least if you ask an engineer what theories he's basing his
next project on, he can give you theories of physics which are generally
agreed on.

> Science has its place (that is, the advancement of human self-knowledge
> and understanding).  Those other folks have more base concerns.  Both are
> pretty darned important.

Yes, and intuitive, creative, productive processes are frequently done
better on a large scale when based on empirically testable science.

Jeff