ian@sibyl.eleceng.ua.OZ (Ian Dall) (07/24/90)
In article <3455@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <391@e2big.mko.dec.com>, gillett@ceomax..dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: >> Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, are all > ******* ******* >> real sciences. There is a fundamental underpinning for everything, >> and everything within these fields procedes from a well understood, >> provable set of facts. > > As for biology, if anyone has a theoretical derivation of the >scaling law brain_weight ~ body_weight**(0.64..0.70) I would be VERY >interested in hearing it. An empirical law is still science. The crucial factor is that it is a testable method of predicting something. True it is not as "satisfying" as a theoretically derived law. >Let's keep things straight: > invention and analysis of algorithms: computer science > design and implementation of reliable programs: software engineering > analysis of most existing computer architectures: hardware pathology And arguably the first is engineering too. The way I had it explained to me when I was a first year undergraduate was: Scientists discover, engineers invent. In practice, scientist might have to engineer equipment to do experiments and engineers might have to do some science to discover some new principles before they can succesfully design, but the end for a scientist is discovery, for an engineer it is design or invention. The only computer "science" which I think is really science is the discovery of principles which are machine and language independent. I think there are very few of those and the vast majority of what is taught as computer science is really software engineering. Of course, the name doesn't really matter and (as an engineer) I certainly don't consider software engineering a "lower" activity than computer science. -- Ian Dall life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts some people more severely than others.