Critical Question:
What are the significant issues with Existing Software Engineering?
Important Note:
During this trip through the significant issues of existing software engineering issues, we will cite false claims in unlimited publications, technologies, tools, research, teaching, programs, developments, and others. We urge everyone not to take this personally. Anyone may disagree with the critical question, but please respond kindly. We experienced many bunches and losses and will speak to everyone about them later.
Motivations:
Experience as a software engineer for more than 40+ years as a practitioner and a Full academic professor, and we mastered every aspect of Software Engineering in different ways and interpretations than other claimed gurus in SWE.
Many software engineering practitioners and academics (including SJSU, where I am a full professor) present many false claims about SWE; all they see and know is the programming aspects of software engineering. Have a different understanding & knowledge of SWE, and they are missing the essential stages of SWE:
1) The Problem Space (Analysis) – Understanding the problem and representing the "WHAT."
We are talking about the functional and non-functional requirements, the responsibility, the collaboration of the classes, and the testing aspects of modeling these problem properties. Unfortunately, this Problem Space does not exist in teaching, training, research, and practice. However, the Problem Space is the most critical stage of software development in all fields of knowledge; By mastering the Problem Space, we can avoid many significant problems, including many failures.
2) The Solution Space (Design, Architecture, Coding) –Creativity of the solution and represent the "HOW-TO." This phase has many problems: 1) there are many solutions, 2) it Would lead to many different modeling techniques 3) The majority of research in SWE IS USELESS. Examples are many different modeling, architecture techniques, tools, and languages all over the solution space. Look at this statement carefully:
"if you do not understand the Problem Space, the outcome of the Solution Space is one of the following alternatives:
a) Useless Development and cancelation of the development – Billions of $s down the drain,
b) Software systems with maintenance nightmare, which causes a lot of system failures and cancelations after 5 to 6 years."
Unfortunately, in practice, coding represents 95% of the software development of any system.
We need to:
1. Unify the way we do everything in software engineering research and development
2. Emphasis on the Art, Science, and Engineering of Software Engineering
3. Stabilize the Engineering of Software
4. Standardize all aspects of Unified Software Engineering
5. Understand and accurate Execution of Software Quality
6. Allow Creativity and Innovations in Software Engineering
7. Prevent Software Maintenance
8. Unified and stabilize Methodologies, Techniques, and Processes
9. Reduce Cost and Effort
10. Produce of High Quality and Maintenance Free Software & Systems
11. Explore and Development of new Disciplines.
12. Free the Software Independency of Hardware
Robert Schaefer -- Thank you for your reply. I only listed a few issues, and the purpose of this post is -- I you have any other issues, I will use them to provide questions and answers. I will update the question for clarification.
All your issues are valid, and I don't see simple solutions (complexity, uniqueness, human ability to see and do the right thing, an inability to predict the future, etc, etc, etc). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem.
"All happy families are alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" -- Tolstoy
that doesn't mean not to try, I'm just saying there's no simple solution
Robert Schaefer:
First, the problem space does not exist in fields of knowledge; therefore, the wicked problem exists in the majority of the area of expertise.
Second, Most of the called top gurus in many areas of knowledge define. For example, In Yingxu Wang. "Software Engineering Foundations A Software Science Perspective" Auerbach Publications, 8 August 2007 (1444 pages)." Wang said that "Software engineering is an ideal testbed for existing theories and methodologies in disciplines mentioned above in the book, from mathematics to cognitive informatics, and from Science to sociology for two reasons:
(1) Software engineering is the latest and the most complicated engineering branch that humankind has ever experienced, and
(2) Software engineering s a transdisciplinary field with both its theoretical foundation and empirical applications inherently. An excellent book treated software engineering as a science.
In the gang of four (GoF) Book Erich Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson, et al. "Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software," Addison-Wesley Professional, October 1994, and another huge number of traditional analysis and design patterns books are programming languages where they claim that Patterns are micro-architecture. Question: Where are the macro and mini architectures?
All the citations of Knuth (1974), Parnas (1998), Dijkstra (1998) & (2004) summarize the following problematic issues:
[1] Knuth indicated that software engineering (SE) is programming, and programming is an art.
[2] Parnas said that Software is a form of engineering.
[3] Dijkstra predicted the death of software engineering (SE) and named it
a. Radical Novelty
b. Miserable Science
c. Doomed Discipline
Dijkstra does not believe that SE is not Art, Science, or Engineering.
[4] Wang emphasizes that SE is a science.
[5] GoF and other traditional patterns are programming and have nothing to do with Art, Science, and Engineering.
Third: I believe existing Software Engineering is a collection of nonsense. It is not ART.
It is Not Science,
It is not Engineering
Fourth: Economic growth depends on Software. We must know that it is difficult for us to compete globally in software contention and achieve the meaning of competition.
Fifth: We developed many innovations in Software Engineering over the 30 years with my students and many gurus based on the Unification and stability of knowledge. We started with Unified and Stable Software Engineering based on three top innovations:
1) Fayad's Software Stability Model (F-SSM) (4 CACM Thinking OObjectively columns)
2) Fayad's Unified Concept Engineering (F-UCE)
3) Fayad's Unified and Stable Linguistic Engineering (F-ULE)
Which leads to a lot more innovations
Please email me if you like to collaborate and be part of the advancement instead of making unjustified and unacceptable claims.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Algebra
- Matrix