🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3844@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> dmg@ssc-vax.uucp (David M Geary) writes:

>  (Real) engineering is based upon certain (perceived to be unmutable) physical
>laws, such as f = ma.  Basing engineering upon these laws yields methods which
>may be applied, in the same manner, to a set of engineering problems.  For
>instance, calculating the amount of heat loss through the walls of a
>residence is always a fixed relation between given variables, such as:
>wall thickness, insulation used, etc.  Therefore, the solution is always
>arrived at via an accepted mathematical method.

That is science, not engineering.  Engineering would give answers to questions
such as "How thick should we make the wall, given that we have this list of
constraints and that list of wishes?"

>  Computer science is not, really.  Where is the "science" in computer science?

The traditional science is in things like automata and formal language
theory.  This has led engineers to use context-free grammars (as PART
of their toolkits).  More modern science can include things like what
kinds of design tend to yield higher error rates than what others.
(If you consider anthropology, biology, etc., non-sciences, then you
may object to this one too.)

>There is no one correct way to write, for instance, a database.

Correct.  This is engineering, just like choosing the bit-width of a bus.

>In software development, there are far fewer classic problems

Yes, because it's newer.  Once upon a time there were no classic problems
in chemical engineering, but chemical engineering is engineering.
--
Norman Diamond       diamond@tkov50.enet.dec.com
If this were the company's opinion, I wouldn't be allowed to post it.