Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > James G. Sack (jim) wrote: > >> /Software Engineering/ is *not really* engineering >> and >> /Computer Science/ is *not really* science > > I kinda agree with these statements. However, I would argue slightly > differently: > > "Computer science" is math rather than science. That does *not* weaken > its position in my opinion, though. > > "Software engineering", thus, is applied math. > > > The problem I have with calling computer science a "science" is the > whole lack of experiment at the foundation. You can run experiments in > CS, but the foundations are not experimental. > > "Software engineering" is fuzzier. It is, at its core, applied math. > However, someone could actually set down a "human factors" baseline that > would move it closer to "industrial engineering". > > Of course, the engineers tend to regard "industrial engineering" as > "imaginary engineering" for exactly that kind of human factors fuzziness. >
I very much like using the term /industry/ in the definition (and/or description) of "software engineering". Other terms that may need to be stirred in are /art/ and /philosophy/. What else? All these, to me, suggest that thinking in terms of [narrow] absolutes may not be appropriate. Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
