Andrea Griffini wrote: > This is investigating. Programming is more similar to building > instead (with a very few exceptions). CS is not like physics or > chemistry or biology where you're given a result (the world) > and you're looking for the unknown laws. In programming *we* > are building the world. This is a huge fundamental difference!
Philosophically I disagree. Biology and physics depends on models of how the world works. The success of a model depends on how well it describes and predicts what's observed. Programming too has its model of how things work; you've mentioned algorithmic complexity and there are models of how humans interact with computers. The success depends in part on how well it fits with those models. In biology there's an extremely well developed body of evidence to show the general validity of evolution. That doesn't mean that a biological theory of predator-prey cycles must be based in an evolutionary model. Physics too has its share of useful models which aren't based on QCD or gravity; weather modeling is one and the general term is "phenomenology." In programming you're often given a result ("an inventory management system") and you're looking for a solution which combines models of how people, computers, and the given domain work. Science also has its purely observational domains. A biologist friend of mine talked about one of his conferences where the conversations range from the highly theoretical to the "look at this sucker we caught!" My feeling is that most scientists do not develop new fundamental theories. They instead explore and explain things within existing theory. I think programming is similar. Both fields may build new worlds, but success is measured by its impact in this world. Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list