Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Andreas Brennecke, Reinhard Keil-Slawik (editors) Position Papers for Dagstuhl Seminar 9635 on History of Software Engineering August 26 – 30, 1996 organized by William Aspray, Reinhard Keil-Slawik and David L. Parnas
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
History and Identity In August 1996 about a dozen historians met with about a dozen computer scientists to discuss the history of software engineering. The term software engineering has been deliberately chosen as being provocative at the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering. This notion was meant to imply that software manufacture should be based on the types of theoretical founda- tions and practical disciplines that are established in the traditional branches of engineering. This need was motivated by the so-called software crisis. Ever since, the debate whether such a crisis exists has continued within the software engineering community. It is a crucial question, because if the answer is yes, software engineering may not be called an engineering discipline yet. If the answer were no, the question would be, what is it that constitutes this discipline. It turned out at the seminar that there may or may not be a software crisis, but there is definitely what might be called an identity crisis. A strong indicator for this phenomenon is the fact that after more than 30 years computer scientists are investigating the history of other estab- lished branches of engineering to find out (or to define?) what should be done to turn software engineering into a sound engineering discipline. In this endeavor, historians were regarded to be some kind of universal problem solvers who were called in whenever a general answer to some fundamental question was needed. Of course, this could not work, because history is not a methodical vehicle to clarify ones own identity or to derive normative principles and guidelines for a discipline. Furthermore, there is only little historic knowledge in the field of software engineering as compared to the “History of Programming Languages”, for instance, or the history of elec- tronic calculating devices. Thus, a Dagstuhl seminar on the “History of Software Engineering” can only act as a starting point, providing (a) a first overview of what has been accomplished so far and (b) identify crucial issues to be studied in the future. With respect to my own expectations about the possible outcome, I have to admit that I was too optimistic when I took the first initiative for this seminar. I underestimated the per- sonal and disciplinary identity problems and I was expecting more historical studies already having been carried out in the field. As a consequence, this seminar report does not provide the reader with a coherent and concise account of what constitutes the history of software engineer- ing. It contains, however, some of the many facets, issues and approaches to the field which have made this Dagstuhl seminar a very stimulating event and which may serve as a starting point for further investigations. More than before, I am convinced that studying the history of
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 61


This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online