From: Chris Gehlker Date: 2002-05-13T23:44:36+09:00 Subject: Re: OT:is software eng an art? On 5/13/02 3:39 AM, "Steve Merrick" wrote: > There are two main types of software engineer. There are those who > believe their field is objectively definable, based on scientific and > engineering principles and practices. And there are those who recognise > a strong creative and artistic component in what they do. The most > important observation of all - in the context of this discussion about > software as an art or a science - is that both of these camps produce > good, working, accurate, reliable and maintainable software. This being > the case, in impartial view would tend towards the conclusion that > either view is acceptable, and that software design can be treated as > science/engineering, or as an art/craft, without compromising the end > product. I'm not sure about this. Looking back up the thread, I don't see any proof that there is disagreement at all about the nature of the process that produces good software (sometimes). There is clearly great disagreement about the definitions of "Art" and "Science." I'm convinced that software is "Art" and that it is not "Science" but that may only be saying that I think it is useful to define "Art" broadly and "Science" narrowly. I can't reasonably infer from that that someone who takes the opposite view would disagree with me in any important respect about what actual practices are likely to produce good software. Contrast this with the 'light' versus 'heavy' methodology camps. There it is clear that there is an actual disagreement about the best way to go about producing code. -- Tact is the ability to describe others as they see themselves. -Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the U.S (1809-1865)