Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
04/10/12 05:39
Read: times


 		 #187084 - Your references aren't exactly backing your view
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Richard Erlacher said:
Many years ago, when people first were trying to recover from the notion that "software engineering" was an oxymoron, which still persists today, there were a couple of authors of systems engineering works, namely Yourdon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Yourdon) and DeMarco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeMarco). They were both popular back in the early '80's, as they had figured out that you can't code what you haven't designed, just as you can't measure what you haven't built.

I'd suggest you pick up one or more of each of their works and do some basic research into what software engineering is.

RE

I suggest that maybe, just maybe, you move forward 30 years. Software engineering have moved forward. But then again, the ideas are still sane. It's just that you have this narrow view that all documentation can be written during the analysis phase and that the design phase is strictly writing code with all facts known. That is not a view backed by your references. In fact, a big part about software engineering is the required design changes as the development progresses. So much about the work on software engineering is about writing robust code and about robust methodologies for being able to transform code based on changes in requirements or design changes after practical tests.

And I'm afraid that you might have missed some parts of the reason why software engineering is sometimes seen as an oxymoron. In traditional engineering, you can use a pocket calculator to compute strength, load factors, material densities, bend coefficients etc. So you can prove a design. Software can often not be proved. It can be tested, which is something completely different.

But let's go the engineering route. An adjustable wrench/spanner wasn't invented as a single step - document everything first and then make one. And even if the invention is over 100 years old, there have been many iterative steps to improve on the design. How do you expect source code to reach the final form without any iterative design steps, for nontrivial problems? Or do you really think the world of software engineering only spans (or only needs) trivial problems?

List of 92 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
has linux had its chips?            01/01/70 00:00      
   some weirdo in sandals a ponytail            01/01/70 00:00      
      Problem is            01/01/70 00:00      
      possibly, but not only            01/01/70 00:00      
      It's all in the history ... and "read the code" doesn't work            01/01/70 00:00      
         Good points!            01/01/70 00:00      
            Why not a firm objective?            01/01/70 00:00      
               Lots of projects have a large percentage research            01/01/70 00:00      
                  I knew you'd have to come in with something irrelevant            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Try document an invention before it's invented...            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Here's some research for you, Per            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Richard to give an example            01/01/70 00:00      
                              I'd like YOU, Erik, to come up with one example ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 Always prejudice from Richard            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 'documenting' means many things            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 here we go again            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    when you're wrong, you're wrong            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       I do not have a microscope and probes that small            01/01/70 00:00      
                                          So you've made no observations ... you just guessed ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                             and that irks you immensely            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                What did you do, aside from guessing?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                   then please, tell me            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                      Are you willing to explore this in detail?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                         now you are jumping            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Your references aren't exactly backing your view            01/01/70 00:00      
                              It's not about me ... it's about process            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 But processes contains feedback loops            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    I believe you've gone off-the-rails, Per            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       But getty isn't Linux            01/01/70 00:00      
                                          it's a small piece, but it's an example            01/01/70 00:00      
                                             But not of Linux            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                It was part of the distribution.            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 'Research' can mean many things            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    Yes, but that's in a different context            01/01/70 00:00      
                                       You still haven't told what Linux documentation you miss            01/01/70 00:00      
                                          I don't know what you mean            01/01/70 00:00      
                                             Still claims based on assumptions and not facts            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                Not everyone is completely stupid            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                   But what is the relevance today?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                      I've no opinion about the current LINUX            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                         and, you Richard, who loves living in the past            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                            just a minute, Erik            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                               Examples?            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                                  Nothing has changed since 15 years ago ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                                     at least not Richards opinions :)            01/01/70 00:00      
                                                                     Still lots of assumptions and unbacked claims            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 Oh, Richard, I have a job for you            01/01/70 00:00      
                           I had Yourdons first book as manuscript and ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                              be careful ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 were you once a bartender ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                    You have to accept the difference ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 We are careful            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Hog Wash.....            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Odd that you see it that way ...            01/01/70 00:00      
                     I just documented fully            01/01/70 00:00      
               Because an "Objective" is not a final product specification            01/01/70 00:00      
                  I have to disagree ... the objective specification is step 1            01/01/70 00:00      
            documentation            01/01/70 00:00      
               Definitely not the "usual response"            01/01/70 00:00      
   Android            01/01/70 00:00      
      I don't think so            01/01/70 00:00      
         Don't agree            01/01/70 00:00      
      all due respect, no.            01/01/70 00:00      
         Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious            01/01/70 00:00      
            re: Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious            01/01/70 00:00      
               but 95% of the population does not need....            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Web browsing normally the most power-hungry you can do            01/01/70 00:00      
                  re: 95%            01/01/70 00:00      
               So how exactly am I wrong?            01/01/70 00:00      
                  But Android is Linux            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Just the opposite            01/01/70 00:00      
                        {sigh}            01/01/70 00:00      
                           just like the preacher said to the atheist            01/01/70 00:00      
                  re: How exactly?            01/01/70 00:00      
      850000 Android phones activated per day, linux video            01/01/70 00:00      
   anecdotes...            01/01/70 00:00      
      These guys...            01/01/70 00:00      
         digital audio consoles            01/01/70 00:00      
   The Rasperry Pi Foundation clearly doesn't think so!            01/01/70 00:00      
      The world isn't just a few companies            01/01/70 00:00      
   the basic problem with free software is...            01/01/70 00:00      
      Careful with the use of "Linux". Most things "Linux" aren't!            01/01/70 00:00      
         I did refer to linux itself            01/01/70 00:00      
            Wrong hw selected, or just big lack of platform knowledge?            01/01/70 00:00      
               a port            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Always danger with low-level code for platform            01/01/70 00:00      
      True - but "paid-for" is not necessarily any better!            01/01/70 00:00      
         when selecting any tool            01/01/70 00:00      
      As Stallman said.....            01/01/70 00:00      
         free            01/01/70 00:00      
            All about volume or already existing knowledge/experience            01/01/70 00:00      
   Well...say what you like about me, and many people do.            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List