msellers@mentor.com (Mike Sellers) (12/17/89)
Don Dwiggins wrote: > You write: > I could put together a list of references, if there are any readers who > believe, as I do, that software development is not unique, but shares > problems common to all technological innovation and implantation. So far, > I have only found AI people willing to look to other disciplines for > answers to their problems, so I doubt that anyone here would be > interested. > > Yes, I'd definitely be interested in references, and I suspect that there > are others who would be, too; pleast post. I too would be interested in gathering useful references in this area. > I presume that the harsh tone of the last sentence derives from some > disappointing personal experience; let me assure you that there are software > folks who are only too happy to learn from any source that seems to have > some relevance. [...] There is currently not a lot of drive to apply lessons learned in other fields to software engineering. I think that, among other things, this is indicative of the state of the field: it is much more an art (or as someone else has said, a craft) than a science. We have not yet recognized enough of the commonalities within various software efforts to understand that there are also deep parallels to be found in other disciplines, or more to the point, where those parallels are to be found and how they are to be best put to use. I would go further in fact, and say that the current lack of 'cross- pollination' indicates something about some of the disciples and not just the discipline. Scientists require external communication to further their work, and this communication does not have to come from within some prescribed intellectual bounds to be considered valid. As Postman said back in 1962, "in science, as in international law, there is the doctrne of 'hot pursuit': a scientist in the host pursuit of a solution to a problem does not hesitate to cross the boundaries of other sciences." He goes on to cite examples of what he calls "honorary psychologists" such as Freud, Binet, James, and Helmholtz. There are some engaging in this type of hot pursuit in trying to find the solutions to various problems faced by the software design community, but they are, I believe, in the vast minority. I do not believe that we can apply the title of science to the study of software design until such practice becomes more prevalent, nor do I believe that anyone who would deny the worth of such practice can correctly be called a scientist. In this sense, software design and thoughts _about_ software design are much more paradigmatic than methodological in nature: we do not yet know enough about software design to specify a set of methods, and certainly are not at the point of specifying or applying general theories to the practice. This leaves us with a great deal of individual, fragmented work being done, with a few common but ill-defined world-views rising from the general chaos. With a little luck and a lot of long hard work, maybe these will be firmed up into definite theoretical areas during my lifetime. I'm 28. > Don Dwiggins "Solvitur Ambulando" -- Mike Sellers ...!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!msellers Mentor Graphics Corp. msellers@mntgfx.MENTOR.COM Electronic Packaging and Analysis Division -- AutoSurface Project "Semper ubi sub ubi"
daven@ibmpcug.co.uk (D R Newman) (12/18/89)
I have received some 20 or 30 messages asking me for references to action research after my earlier posting. This has driven me to take this more seriously, and look for some easily available references (not the rather obscure ones I use). When I have put some together, I will post them here. Thanks for the interest. Dave Newman, Consultants in Appropriate Technology, 188 (2A) Bedford Hill, London SW12 9HL, England. Tel. 01-675 5933. Usenet: daven@ibmpcug.co.uk GreenNet: gn:davenewman. -- Automatic Disclaimer: The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.