Who gets higher salary a Java Programmer or a C++ Programmer?

[LR]

Work for me to what end?

Work for you to understand what I meant within the context of this
discussion.

It is far more important that you stop snipping and responding
to conjunctions and instead respond substantively to the entire
substance of posts, if you were serious about wanting to learn.

I think that I've learned a few things from this thread, some even
directly related to the subject matter that was discussed. Some of the
things I already knew have been reinforced. Some I didn't know before.
From that perspective it's been somewhat useful for me, for which I am
always grateful. I am also grateful for the chance to practice my
admittedly limited communication skills.

I've tried to be careful about responding frankly to the substantive
parts of other people's posts, but perhaps I've failed in this. Your
suggestions in this regard makes me think that profitably communicating
with you on these issues rises to a level of difficulty that I am unable
to overcome. I would like to thank you for making the attempt.

LR

 

[Arne Vajhøj]

[snip] science
does not require "proof"; it requires testing.

Testing of things that are observable in the real world?

Observation is required. Neither "things" nor a "real world"
need be defined (if you can even define them suitably).

In the most pedantic form, a scientific hypothesis consists
of a detailed description of an experimental setup, methods,
conditions, procedures, etc and a predicted observation. In
practice such details are not pedantically spelled out since
there is a large shared body of auxiliary knowledge that we
can rely upon to communicate the details.

Now you are talking about natural sciences not all sciences.

Arne

 

[Noah Roberts]

Software Engineering is replete with scientific principles.
Here are but a few off the top of my head:

Murphy's Law

LOL!!

 

[Noah Roberts]

Can anyone say Claude Shannon? Entropy! An essential element of
Information Theory, the science of information.

Although entropy and information seem to go hand in hand, it isn't
exactly useful in the field to attempt applying the laws of
thermodynamics to your software problem solving.

 

[Noah Roberts]

I'm sorry, but could you please be explicit about which scientific
principle is being applied?

Computer science is a new science. It actually came to be around the
same time as exercise science. You'll notice that both fields are
radically and rapidly changing in their suggested principles and findings.

There are some very interesting motions being made though. Studies
might appear to suggest that Agile development methods are faster.
These methods are counterintuitive, which goes a long way toward
explaining why they haven't been accepted until now. Furthermore there
are many people working on formulating objective criteria to measure
design. See work by people like Robert C. Martin and Design Principles.
Refactoring and code smells are ways in which software _engineers_ can
apply these *principles*.

See also previous attempts such as code metrics, which haven't proven
their usefulness.

 

[Noah Roberts]

All of which are social phenomena. Economics is a behavioral science,
not a physical one.

Tell that to biologists studying evolution.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Of course they exist, or we wouldn't even be able to talk about them.
One could argue that mathematical existence is stronger and more real
than physical existence.

Hehehehe. That is a highly contestable statement, both of them.

Does God exist? How about Dragons?

The discussion of the nature of being as such, i.e., what exists and
doesn't exist, was the subject of one of the most fascinating and
enduringly relevant courses I took at university.

If your professor was worth his weight in salt, you where also taught
the opposing views.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Hehehehe. That is a highly contestable statement, both of them.

Does God exist? How about Dragons?

If your professor was worth his weight in salt, you where also taught
the opposing views.

Let me put this in a sort of perspective. If we define "exist" to be
all those things that can be 'discussed', including those without
physical properties such as gods and dragons, then we have to include
logical contradictions. We have to include this statement in our
knowledge base:

P ^ ~P

Once that is done, any logical statement is derivable and we must
believe everything. See the principle of explosion.

There's the reductio ad absurdum of your definition of 'exist'.

I would suggest that this is an unacceptable position and we need to
find some point at which we can decide if an idea has real existence or
not. I'd hope that it is not an arbitrary, wishy-washy boundary.
Personally I think it totally appropriate to reserve the word 'exist' to
those things with physical properties. You can then discuss if logical
abstractions like logic and math have physical properties.

 

[Mark Space]

LR wrote:

But there's something else about this that's been nagging at me, and I
think it might be the issue of system size. I think I've read, either
in this thread, or maybe in a link someone provided that software
engineering was about big systems. You seem to be saying that some of
what people are claiming "SE" can do can't really apply to large systems.

I think also there's a misunderstanding of what software engineering can
do. I've got a book on estimating that says that getting within 25% of
a software projects cost/time is considered good, and about as much as
can be expected. Missing an estimate by much more (100%+) is common.

 

[Lew]

Let me put this in a sort of perspective.  If we define "exist" to be
all those things that can be 'discussed', including those without
physical properties such as gods and dragons, then we have to include
logical contradictions.  We have to include this statement in our
knowledge base:

P ^ ~P

Once that is done, any logical statement is derivable and we must
believe everything.  See the principle of explosion.

That a contradiction exists is not the same as that it is proven,
provable or valid.

There's the reductio ad absurdum of your definition of 'exist'.

It missed the point. A logical contradiction exists, and by its
existence can prove, for example, the invalidity of an assumption. If
the contradiction in that case did not exist, one could not disprove
the assumption - it is the existence of the contradiction that does
the disproving.

It isn't 'ad absurdum' because a) the conclusion isn't absurd, and b)
doesn't speak at all to derivability. The contradiction is non-
derivable, that is part of the essence of its existence.

Your argument does not create a contradiction of my claims.

 

[Lew]

Although entropy and information seem to go hand in hand, it isn't
exactly useful in the field to attempt applying the laws of
thermodynamics to your software problem solving.

Information entropy is a well-established principle since Shannon, and is core
to computer science (pun intended).

 

[Lew]

If your professor was worth his weight in salt, you where also taught
the opposing views.

"Opposing" with respect to what?

 

[Noah Roberts]

"Opposing" with respect to what?

Really?

Your claim that anything we can think up "exists" of course.

Gods and dragons...

 

[Lew]

Really?

Your claim that anything we can think up "exists" of course.

Gods and dragons...

So it's your claim that gods don't really exist, and that dragons
never did?

As to "opposing" that view, that course was not about views. It was a
technical discussion of the nature of being as such.

 

[Lew]

I didn't claim that. I said that we are only able to talk about
points and lines because they exist, not that they exist because we
can talk about them. Your riposte suffers from the straw-man fallacy.

 

[Guest]

So you're in a minority of one.  All of the standard definitions
consider it science.

He's in a minority of at least two. I don't consider mathematics
a science. It certainly isn't an empirical science.

On the other hand I regard "software engineering" as a meaningful
term and pretty much agree with everthing else you've said.

Software Engineering is engineering because it applies
scientific and mathematical principles to sytems that
do useful work with the economic application of resources.

Obviously, if you redefine science, and redefine principles, you
can come up with definitions such that softwareengineeringdoes
not use "scientific principles".  But that's just playing word
games, and doesn't help either understanding nor communication.


What physical phenomena are involved in such sciences as
economic science, or psychology, or sociology.

those aren't really science but just wooly subjects.
I don't think Lord Kelvin would even classify them
as stamp collecting.




--
Nick Keighley


Software people would never drive to the office
if building engineers and automotive engineers
were as cavalier about buildings and autos as
the software "engineer" is about his software.

 

[Guest]

this is just wrong. Engineering uses science. Science doesn't
necessarily have an engineering application.

- astronomy
- sub-nuclear physics (we aren't building things with quarks yet)
- most of quantum mechanics and General Relativity

none

String theory is part of physics.  Physics is related to at least a few
of theengineeringdisciplines. I don't think that "string theory"
qualifies as a science, anymore than say, "gravitational theory" does.

bollocks.

Since when was gravitational theory not part of science?
I think you have an opinion and you are trying to twist things
to make reality match your opinion.

 

[Guest]

"Texas even goes so far as to ban anyone from writing any real-time code
without anengineeringlicense." I smell a First Amendment case.  (For
those of you who aren't in the US, sorry, that's a free speech issue.)

so if texas banned people who weren't doctors from performing
open surgery you'd regard this as a free spech issue?

 

[Guest]

That's been done for Algol 68,

you sure that wasn't Algol-60?

 

[Lew]

Software Engineering is engineering because it applies
scientific and mathematical principles to sytems that
do useful work with the economic application of resources.

Just because "LR" poses an idiolectic definition of engineering as strictly
and solely "application of scientific principles" doesn't mean his definition
must be accepted. I'd go with the definitions cited upthread that come from
professional engineering associations.

Someone said:
Transfer of money and goods and other human behaviors.

those aren't really science but just wooly subjects.

Whaaa? That presumes another idiolectic definition, of science.

Of course they're sciences, insofar as they involve the application of
scientific investigation into phenomena.

I don't think Lord Kelvin would even classify them
as stamp collecting.

Well, aren't we presumptuous?