2008/11/10 Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> It is a given that Perry and Wolf built upon decades of work. They >>> wouldn't be scientists if they didn't. You can check the references >>> in their papers, as well as the references of those references if you >>> want to study the history, and of course it would track back to the >>> likes of Djikstra, Parnas, Brooks, Shaw, and all the other pioneers of >>> the field. But before their first paper, there was no single, >>> complete, coherent model for designing software systems. So that is >>> why I chose to say "20". >> >> What would you say Sommerville's "Software Engineering" does then? > > I haven't read it. But the book isn't cited by any of the names in > the field, nor does he write papers,
Ummmm I think it is http://www.amazon.com/Software-Engineering-International-Computer-Science/dp/book-citations/0321210263 and I think he does http://portal.acm.org/author_page.cfm?id=81100335980&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&trk=0&CFID=4466725&CFTOKEN=79928146. According to some sources its more cited than the Perry and Wolfe paper (340 v 338) Here is a PPT that he gave (in 2000) on the 3 different views on software architecture (http://sunset.usc.edu/~neno/cs477_2003/February11.ppt) > so I expect it's just one of the > many of fine books that cover a wide variety of topics in software > engineering. If he managed to tie those all together into a complete > model, then I guess academia somehow overlooked it while it was > struggling to find such a model in the 80s. Not in England it wasn't :) Then again he was the external marker for my 3rd year project. Steve > > Mark. >
