> ". . . most design problems we face in creating software can be resolved only through experimentation with a partially running system. Engineering is and always has been fundamentally such an enterprise, no matter how much we would like it to be more like science than like art."
This is not a very good way of putting it. The essence of engineering is determinate knowledge, i.e. scientific, logical knowledge. That is not to say it excludes other things, or that that essence alone is sufficient, just that it is the definitive, distinctive, fundamental feature.
Experiment produces determinate knowledge -- the most specific, detailed kind. Scientific research produces the broad, general know-how, and experiment fills the gaps for a particular task. If engineering were not fundamentally about determinate knowledge, then experiment could not work. The knowledge produced by the experimental trial would not even have the generality to transfer to the intended use.
Associating engineering and software with art seems of little value. From what I remember of aesthetic philosophy, art does not have substantial, useful, or perhaps any correspondence with engineering -- let alone the vagueness of what art is anyway. One cannot fault the real content of the article, but the arty leaning is ultimately empty.
The limit of engineering is evolution, not art. When there is no knowledge, engineering design can't work, and instead evolution is the way. Proof of the effectiveness of that alternate approach is all around.
Comments
> ". . . most design problems we face in creating software can be resolved only through experimentation with a partially running system. Engineering is and always has been fundamentally such an enterprise, no matter how much we would like it to be more like science than like art."
This is not a very good way of putting it. The essence of engineering is determinate knowledge, i.e. scientific, logical knowledge. That is not to say it excludes other things, or that that essence alone is sufficient, just that it is the definitive, distinctive, fundamental feature.
Experiment produces determinate knowledge -- the most specific, detailed kind. Scientific research produces the broad, general know-how, and experiment fills the gaps for a particular task. If engineering were not fundamentally about determinate knowledge, then experiment could not work. The knowledge produced by the experimental trial would not even have the generality to transfer to the intended use.
Associating engineering and software with art seems of little value. From what I remember of aesthetic philosophy, art does not have substantial, useful, or perhaps any correspondence with engineering -- let alone the vagueness of what art is anyway. One cannot fault the real content of the article, but the arty leaning is ultimately empty.
The limit of engineering is evolution, not art. When there is no knowledge, engineering design can't work, and instead evolution is the way. Proof of the effectiveness of that alternate approach is all around.