Todd Walton wrote:
On 8/26/07, James G. Sack (jim) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Not appropriate in some sense. But expedient.
Maybe computing being so hard to classify into the categories that
came before it is a reason that it's had such a monumental impact on
our lives and futures. Maybe if we had found an easy classification
at the beginning, we'd've developed notions of what it should do and
what it was aiming at that would have limited its impact to that of
math or science generally. Just a thought. And not one I'd
personally defend with very much vigor.
I would actually argue that this is simply due to how *new* computer
science is. In my opinion, the big problem is that computer science
hasn't had an official split yet.
Most other fields split into an applied vs. core much further back.
Look at when mechanical engineering and electrical engineering split off
from physics (a *long* time ago). Look at when chemical engineering
split off from chemistry. Bioengineering hasn't split off from biology
quite yet, but it's trying to.
Computer science needs to have a similar split, but it hasn't quite
figured out what it is.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
