Conference turris::languages

      I just tried to write a reply to .0, but failed after realizing
    that I didn't understand a word that was said.  What is a
    computer-related phenomena.  What is economical software?  I just
    don't understand the first two definitions.  I *know* I can fill
    the "Programmer" definition, and I'm pretty sure I fill the other
    two as well, but I'd never be able to tell you from the definitions
    supplied.

    
    I personally see myself as all of the above, which one depends on
    the cirumstances of the task being worked on. I just completed writing
    a small tool, as a "Programmer", the size/complexity of the task
    did not require the "overhead" of being a "software engineer". 
    
    I think that software engineering is a term that is more geared
    to the design/development of a system, where as programming is the
    "ART" of translating a design into code. Some systems are small
    enough and simple enought that their design phase is intrinsic
    and one goes straight to the programming (i.e. no need to write
    specs before the fact, just include them after the fact in the
    documentation). 
    
    Wether involved in software engineering or programming, Computer
    Science, is always involved. Each system and/or program involves
    the examination or discovery of a unique "phenomenon" of computers.
    The phenomenon may be minor, one previously discovered, or 
    a new phenomemon of indeterminate size. More aptly I believe that
    computer science covers a broader scope that the definition given
    in .0. Computer science involves not only software engineering as
    it relates to the development of programs/systems, but to the
    relationship between the hardware and the software, and the 
    phenomenon if you will of their interaction. A computer scientist
    must be able to understand the underlying design of the hardware
    and take it into account when design a software system. A software
    engineer need be less concerned with the hardware, since they 
    are using "engineering principles" to design a software system,
    which is "independant" (for the most part) of the hardware design.
    (Before anybody flames...I grant the exception for a software 
    engineer writing a low level device driver, here there is a
    greater interaction with the hardware in the design of the software).
    
    I offer the above as enhancements to the original definition, not
    replacements. I know the originator of the note did not want to
    get into a discussion of the definition of the terms, but before
    anybody categorizes themselves, I think it is important to 
    clarify/expand the definitions.
    
    I believe that most people involved in the software end of computers
    wear all three of these "hats" interchangeably as the need arises.
    
    
    					Tom
    
    

    I don't buy your definitions at all.  As for Software Engineering...
    
    After a quarter of a century of throwing money down the black hole
    corporations now call MIS, a new generation of MBA's who look at
    cost/benefit relations a little closer than their ancestors have
    blown the whistle on the computing profession.
    
    Now unveiled, and squirming from the heat, the folks who gave 
    corporations computing have looked at each other and said,
    "ENGINEERING...yeah, that's it - Software Engineering - that's what
    you need.  We've been workin' on it for the past ten years and
    we'll have some for you tomorrow, yeah-yeah, that's it."
    
    And the corporate world has cautiously bought into it because it
    is the only teddy bear we have to offer.  But twenty five years
    from now computers are still going to be sucking money as fast
    as a black hole.

    And as the phrase goes, "if there's any fun left in it, it isn't
    software engineering" so we go.  Be real - engineering is going to 
    be the very last place to adopt true engineering methodologies.
    People know it isn't fun and they have so many good reasons why 
    they can't adopt these methods themselves.
    
    So, just like medicine, I think it's an art - and I don't see any big 
    rush among the best artists to become engineers.
    
    jeh
    
    P.S.   I see more "engineering" going on in SWS than in engineering.
    

Re .*:

Excuse me, but this issue seems far more suited to the contents and
purpose of the Software Engineering conference (NANDI::SWENG) than this
conference.  Especially since the discussion parallels statements already
made in topics 2, 14, 25 and 29 (among others) in SWENG.  I suggest
the discussion continue there, if anyone has something to add beyond
what has already been said there.  The magic select key will add the SWENG
conference to your notebook while reading this note.
				/AHM/THX

.0> I'd like to hear how other people on the net define themselves,
.0> as a software engineer, a computer scientist, or a programmer.

My job title says "Software Engineer"
My degree hanging on the wall says "Computer Science"
When people ask me what I do, I tell them I'm a programmer.

    Although parts of my work can be classified under each of the three
    categories, I primarily consider myself to be a Software Engineer,
    as you've defined it.

    I'm also a hacker, in that I frequently write small programs for
    this or that, including some applications to support Computer Science!

    Interestingly, I also see Software Engineering as a bridge between
    the other two categories, Computer Science and Programming.

					- Gilbert

    >  Interestingly, I also see Software Engineering as a bridge between
    >  the other two categories, Computer Science and Programming.
        
    Let's hear some more on this.  How is it a bridge?  Do you mean
    that it touches on both, but they don't touch on each other?  Or
    do you mean that it somehow unifies them under a common "arch"?
    If so, what is that arch?
    
    				Just digging a little deeper,
    
    				    Ralph
    
    
    

	I know I'm not a Software Engineer.  If I was, then maybe I could access
    the Software Engineering conference (NANDI::SWENG - mentioned in 88.4).

	Maybe the question really needs to be "What are the differences between
    the three software development divisions within DEC?".  I've listed them
    here alphabetically to avoid bias:

	(1)	Programmer/Analyst (D-Code)
	(2)	Software Engineer (J-Code)
	(3)	Software Specialist (R-Code)

	If the differences are important enough to chart career paths based
    upon them, then maybe these should be examined as well to see how they
    fit into the categories mentioned.

						-DAV0

The "sound engineering principles and methods" applied by the Software
Engineer are *founded* in Computer Science.  In producing software, a
Software Engineer produces "working code".

Computer Science may be considered 'theory', and Programming, 'practice'.
Software Engineering 'bridges' these two extremes.

In high school, I was a baritone who longed to have a basso profundo's depth
and resonance (a good "Old Man River" was possible on very relaxed mornings),
and would occasionally strain into the tenor's stratosphere.  There are few
musical roles for baritones; fortunately, a good living can be made as a 
Software Engineer.

RE: .9

  I'd ammend that to be Computer Science is 'theory', Programming is
'implementation', while Software Engineering is 'design'.  In my mind, a
programmer is someone who codes.  A software engineer is a person who is
aware of the theory of computers (software, hardware, users, techniques,
etc).  Above both of these is the pure computer scientist (artist) who builds
the latest and greatest theory.  And then there's the rogue, the 'hacker'
(in the good sense of the word), who crosses all three by theorizing, designing
and implementing on the fly.  Most 'good' software engineers, though, have
a fair understanding of computer science, whether formally or informally
acquired.

re .10
! And then there's the rogue, the 'hacker'
! (in the good sense of the word), who crosses all three by theorizing, designing
! and implementing on the fly.  

This little ditty does seem to describe anyone who takes part in a project
in this company, that uses the well known and loved PHASE REVIEW PROCESS. !

Aside of that , no one has mentioned the SYSTEMS ENGINEER, That rare breed of
person, who is trained as an ENGINEER ( MECH or ELCT ), writes programs, and 
puts together complete "DIGITAL SOLUTIONS", to the benefit of us all. Where
do these prople fit in ?

/Stephen
(P.S. sorry for describing my job )

Stephen Davies , holder of a Degree in Mechanical Engineering but group 
software Guru.

    Please describe the role of the Systems Engineer in more depth.
    
    How does he integrate all this into systems?  Is there a pattern
    in the activity, or is every case entirely individual?  Does the
    pattern (if there is one) match the phase review process well, or
    are there "rough edges" that don't fit into that model?
    
    						Ralph