Hi,
While not a software engineer, I've followed these types of
conversations quite often over the past decade or so...
My conclusion?
That software code is "frozen thought" and that physics
(Newtonian or otherwise) is the wrong science to be bringing
to it.
With what do we replace physics?
Logically, the science of thought, of cognition - epistemology.
There are some, only some, academic forays into the
epistemology of software but they tend to start from
Carnot's Epistemology of Physics - which means that they
haven't actually freed themselves from seeing "code" as a
physical entity. And that seems to be the "problem". Code is
no more physical than mathematics - and you, normally,
wouldn't dream of comparing a pure mathematician with a
civil engineer. Would you?
My observations on this whole issue are more or less that
much of the problem stems from using the wrong framework
(physics rather than epistemology) to analyse the problem...
It's the same type of "framework shift" that open source
brought to the IP of software. And that, in itself, showed
that there was a disconnect in applying "real" property
rights to "unreal" property. The framework was wrong in that
case as well...
Enough for now. Hope this helps crack open a few doors... :-)
Cheers,
Stephen
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
