1)Software engineering is built on computer science – just as mechanical engineering is built on physics.

> Wrong. What part of software engineering that are just as sound as physics?
> Physics have very sound theoretical foundation: the 7 basic units.
Computer science (ignore about the hardware part, which is again based on
physics) does not have such. To be precise: Software science does not exist, and therefore software engineering does not exist.

2) There are both well defined and ill defined terms in engineering/physics and computer science / software engineering.

> You proposed examples of well defined (physical) engineering terms. There are also well defined software terms, such as recursion, A-star, kloc, etc.

> Hm, those are poor in comparison to the 7 basic units in physics.
> What is the definition of recursion?
> Must recursion be there in any program (software)? No. So it cannot
be part of sound theoretical foundation.

> A-star? Same.

> KLOC? Kilo Lines Of Code. How can this be a sound theoretical
foundation. It can bring too many interpretation. Look at the 7 basic
units in physics. There is only one interpretation for any of the 7
basic units.

> And you suggested terms that in software mean different things to different people. There are similar terms in the physical engineering world too. Motion and heat come to mind as perfect examples. Is motion the atomic vibration, or the orbit of a satellite, or a falling ball?

> How can the motion must be the orbit of a satellite? There is no such
valid conclusion.

Is heat the latent heat, absolute temperature, or a measure of potential energy?

> It can be perceived from two or more perspective, but again the physics are based on a very sound theoretical foundation, the 7 basic units. Whether the latent heat is absolute temperature or a measure of potential energy can be investigated in more detail, but then the measure (of energy, of temperature) are based on the 7 basic units.

> This is not the case with software. Even the KB OR MB cannot be the sound
theoretical foundation for software since it is the units of physical storage.

How do we define A-star, recursion?

3) Terminology. Different disciplines of physical engineering look at the world differently too.
Mechanical engineers will use Laplace transforms to study the time-domain of dynamic systems, while (analog) electrical engineers will use Fourier. They’re trying to solve problems that are different – perhaps the differences are nuanced, but the specialist tools have evolved to make solving the problems more efficient. The same is true in software.

> A big mistake. You talk about techniques, not something analogous (which serves the same purpose) of 7 basic units. Using different transformations is like using different algorithms. Transformation is not equivalent to the 7 basic units. Indeed, the 7 basic units are more elementary, more basic than the transformation. People have used some of the 7 basic units before 20 century without using any transformations in practice.

4) Confusing terms. Why do we need centigrade, Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit, and Rankine temperature scales? Some of it is parallel development, some of it is solving different problems.

> Those are scales, not the sound theoretical foundation. The sound theoretical foundation for Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit, and Rankine is TEMPERATURE. Now, what is the sound theoretical foundation for software? You have not given any, and you have not even answered my question to define some terms in computing (module, program, object).

Bernaridho

Conclusion: Scott seems right to me

1)Software engineering is built on computer science – just as mechanical engineering is built on physics.

2) There are both well defined and ill defined terms in engineering/physics and computer science / software engineering.

You proposed examples of well defined (physical) engineering terms. There are also well defined software terms, such as recursion, A-star, kloc, etc.

And you suggested terms that in software mean different things to different people. There are similar terms in the physical engineering world too. Motion and heat come to mind as perfect examples. Is motion the atomic vibration, or the orbit of a satellite, or a falling ball? Is heat the latent heat, absolute temperature, or a measure of potential energy?

3) Terminology. Different disciplines of physical engineering look at the world differently too. Mechanical engineers will use Laplace transforms to study the time-domain of dynamic systems, while (analog) electrical engineers will use Fourier. They’re trying to solve problems that are different – perhaps the differences are nuanced, but the specialist tools have evolved to make solving the problems more efficient. The same is true in software.

4) Confusing terms. Why do we need centigrade, Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit, and Rankine temperature scales? Some of it is parallel development, some of it is solving different problems.

I agree that it is annoying that different database providers have their own custom transactions and procedures that are incompatible with others. And it can be tedious when people use different names for the same thing.

So, if these arguments prove that there is no “software engineering”, then there must not be “physical engineering” either. Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to see us address this stuff, but I don’t believe it precludes calling the field one of engineering.

An engineering discipline should be based on solid theoretical foundation, a solid science. So called ‘software engineering’ does not have one.

Ask the question ‘what is 1 meter’ to civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, and chemical engineers; and you will find one answer. Volt is volt, no other terminologies accepted. Many terminologies are well defined, well accepted, not confusing.

Those luxuries are absent in the so called ‘software engineering’. Ask the meaning of the following terminologies to the so called ‘software engineers’. If you ask 9 people you get 9 answers

- program
- module
- object
- relational
- object-relational

This is very different situation with the answer you get by asking what is 1 meter to engineers in other fields. In other words, ‘software engineers’ do not deal with well-defined terminologies world wide.

Related to that is the uniformity of terminologies. Linux ‘software engineers’ will use the terminology of shell script, but Microsoft ‘software engineers’ will use the terminology ‘batch file’. This does not happen in other engineering.

Too many redundant and confusing terminologies: column, field, attribute, in the so called ‘software engineering’; not to mention about tuple, row, and record. Do we need that? Why not using only one (column, record)?

Until at least these problems are fixed, there are no such things as software science and software engineering.

Bernaridho
http://www.bernaridho.com