From: ···········@gmail.com
Subject: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1160733665.154843.156540@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Hi everyone. I wrote this article about the Definition of Software
Engineering, and I touch a few scheme/lisp concepts about half way
through the essay. I'm a scheme (and CL) novice, so if anyone would
like, could you check this article real quick to make sure my ideas are
sound? Thanks!

http://drewyates.net/walls-and-flagstaves

-Drew Yates

From: ············@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1160817309.736488.209950@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
···········@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi everyone. I wrote this article about the Definition of Software
> Engineering, and I touch a few scheme/lisp concepts about half way
> through the essay. I'm a scheme (and CL) novice, so if anyone would
> like, could you check this article real quick to make sure my ideas are
> sound? Thanks!

I don't mean to nit-pick, but your apostrophes leave spaces after them
;)

I'd also say that software engineering isn't just "How to define
behavior."  That's writing software.  Software engineering is about the
_process_ of defining behavior.  That's maybe why the IEEE definition
is so complicated -- because software engineering is about the meta.
But I guess "How" addresses the meta aspect implicitly.

Best,
mfh
From: Tayssir John Gabbour
Subject: Re: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1160878821.464384.40400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
············@gmail.com wrote:
> I'd also say that software engineering isn't just "How to define
> behavior."  That's writing software.  Software engineering is about the
> _process_ of defining behavior.  That's maybe why the IEEE definition
> is so complicated -- because software engineering is about the meta.
> But I guess "How" addresses the meta aspect implicitly.


Seems to me there's two senses of software engineering... is from the
manager's perspective, the ability to program programmers. The other is
from a developer's perspective, ideas on how to structure your time and
cooperate with others.

I have relatively little idea about the first. But with the second, I
like Alan Kay's discussion of software "architecture" in his
entertaining "The computer revolution hasn't happened yet" talk.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521

(The notion of manager vs. developer I took from David Noble's analyses
of tech, who was recommended by Chomsky.)

Tayssir
From: grackle
Subject: Re: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1160976653.655303.17120@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> (The notion of manager vs. developer I took from David Noble's analyses
> of tech, who was recommended by Chomsky.)
>
> Tayssir

Sounds like an interesting guy.  Sometimes I think my boss wants to see
me as a programmed machine, so my every right move can be credited to
his direction.  Amazon search reveals David F. Noble of York University
(_Forces of Production_) and David W. Noble of the University of
Minnesota (_The Religion of Technology_).  Which one did you get the
idea from?

-David
From: Tayssir John Gabbour
Subject: Re: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1160997331.169625.111910@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
grackle wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> > (The notion of manager vs. developer I took from David Noble's analyses
> > of tech, who was recommended by Chomsky.)
>
> Sounds like an interesting guy.  Sometimes I think my boss wants to see
> me as a programmed machine, so my every right move can be credited to
> his direction.  Amazon search reveals David F. Noble of York University
> (_Forces of Production_) and David W. Noble of the University of
> Minnesota (_The Religion of Technology_).  Which one did you get the
> idea from?

They're actually the same person; the "W." is Amazon's typo. I got it
from _Forces of Production_, which is a kinda technical history on the
metalworking industry; I've been meaning to look at his other books
recently. One idea from _Forces_ is how technology can be used either
to deskill/commoditize workers (for greater management control), or to
remove layers of management (for more self-organized teams).
http://nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?DavidNoble/ForcesOfProduction


A bit more offtopic...

There are entertaining reads if you want to read up on corporate
workplaces which are more participatory and bottom-up than typical
ones. A nice easily citeable and respected one is Semco. (It can be
mentioned in the mainstream since the CEO wrote a bestseller or two on
it and is a visiting scholar at Harvard business school. What's also
nice is he's obviously aware of anarchism, mentioning figures like
Bakunin in passing.)
http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Success-Behind-Unusual-Workplace/dp/0446670553

Another is GE's Durham plant, though I don't know whether it's still
around or really anything about it.
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/28/ge.html

My reference point is the not-so-mainstream Parecon, which enables me
to better evaluate the (relatively reformist) workplaces mentioned
above...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics


Tayssir
From: Tayssir John Gabbour
Subject: Re: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1161012857.178135.69080@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> grackle wrote:
> > Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> > > (The notion of manager vs. developer I took from David Noble's analyses
> > > of tech, who was recommended by Chomsky.)
> >
> > Sounds like an interesting guy.  Sometimes I think my boss wants to see
> > me as a programmed machine, so my every right move can be credited to
> > his direction.  Amazon search reveals David F. Noble of York University
> > (_Forces of Production_) and David W. Noble of the University of
> > Minnesota (_The Religion of Technology_).  Which one did you get the
> > idea from?
>
> They're actually the same person; the "W." is Amazon's typo. I got it
> from _Forces of Production_, which is a kinda technical history on the
> metalworking industry; I've been meaning to look at his other books
> recently. One idea from _Forces_ is how technology can be used either
> to deskill/commoditize workers (for greater management control), or to
> remove layers of management (for more self-organized teams).
> http://nooranch.com/synaesmedia/wiki/wiki.cgi?DavidNoble/ForcesOfProduction

BTW, I should warn that _Forces of Production_ is probably dry reading,
as it's a more scholarly work...


Tayssir
From: Michael J. Forster
Subject: Re: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1161014037.396638.199810@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
···········@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi everyone. I wrote this article about the Definition of Software
> Engineering, and I touch a few scheme/lisp concepts about half way
> through the essay. I'm a scheme (and CL) novice, so if anyone would
> like, could you check this article real quick to make sure my ideas are
> sound? Thanks!
>
> http://drewyates.net/walls-and-flagstaves
>
> -Drew Yates

I've only had a moment to skim your article.  I'll have a closer
look later.  For now, I'll simply note this reference, which you
might find useful:

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~bh/bridge.html

Cheers,

Mike

--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>
From: ···········@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Definition of Software Engineering
Date: 
Message-ID: <1161245508.539478.192520@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Thank you for the feedback. I'm watching the Alan Kay movie right
now... pretty interesting. I've got Harvey article up in a tab and I'll
get to that next. This is good stuff.

I've since written an abbreviated version of Walls and Flagstaves to
just the recursive-Lispy definition: Eval and Apply to Define and
Behave http://drewyates.net/defnbev/

If you're not a jaded university student, you might like this one
better.