eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) (09/29/87)
In article <8709290724.AA10633@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> solar!shf (Stuart Ferguson) writes: >+-- cdfk@hplb.CSNET (Caroline Knight) writes: >| ... I believe that in software there is a better analogy with art >| and illustration than engineering or science. I have noticed that this >| is not welcomed by many people in computing but this might be because >| they know so little of the thought processes and planning that go on >| behind the development of, say, a still life or an advertising poster. > >This line of thinking appeals to me alot (and I'm a "person in computing," >having 10+ years programming experience). I can apreciate this article >because my own thinking has led me to somewhat the same place regarding >"Computer Science." I'm glad I waited a bit on this. Two years ago, I met Nico Habermann of CMU. At that time I suggest CS could learn more from cognitive sciences (psychology). Habermann has an EE PhD. He didn't like this idea due to the softness. I suggest others try this question on other hard CS-types. I only ask that you avoid analogies to introspection. While the art analogy to computing has a certain appeal, especially the iterative and prototypical aspects, and it also has Knuth behind it, it also has some problems. Rather than mentioned them, I suggest you send mail to DEK and report back. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "Send mail, avoid follow-ups. If enough, I'll summarize." {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix}!ames!aurora!eugene