[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ...

• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
• To: "'David Lee'" <dlee@calldei.com>, "'Costello, Roger L.'" <costello@m...>
• Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:13:17 -0600

Same as the comment Jon Taplin makes when extolling Apple:  Art and Science.

A means to make things people like and will buy.

Pair it up and all you have to measure is the money.  And for some, art
serves best that way.  And for them, IME anecdotally, they don't tend to be
people who DO both.

Money cannot make the message.  Art can.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Costello, Roger L.
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re:  Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence
... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to
designing web services]

I would disagree.
I try to treat my software creations as art as well as science.
Same with much on engineering. Architecture, design, human interfaces.
Much is art in the literal sense. Backed by but not solely science.
Science is interested in fact or truth.
Engineering is interested in things that work well.
For me, the expression (art) is important and working well is more important
regardless of if I can support it with a scientific basis.   If I can get
both great, but given a trade off of theoretically sound and actually works,
I'll pick that which works.  Theory be damned.

As one with a hard science educational background I Agee "science is good"
But something that actually works is better.
And if that can be expressed with elegance and beauty it is transcendent ..




Sent from my iPad (excuse the terseness) 
David A Lee
dlee@calldei.com


On Dec 29, 2011, at 1:18 PM, "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
wrote:

> 
>> I'd suggest software design is closer to engineering than science
> 
> But isn't the goal of every engineer to move steadily away from
engineering-as-an-art to engineering-as-a science? 
> 
> Stated differently, shouldn't we endeavor to approach engineering problems
as scientists?
> 
> /Roger 
> 
> P.S. Fascinating discussion!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> 
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> 

_______________________________________________________________________

XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.

[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
    • From: David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>

• References:
  • Re: Engineering versus Science, Anecdote versus Evidence ... [Was: Designing an experiment to gather evidence on approaches to designing web services]
    • From: David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>