Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Software, Software Engineering and Software Engineering Research: Some Unconventional Thoughts

  • Survey
  • Published:
Journal of Computer Science and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Software engineering is broadly discussed as falling far short of expectations. Data and examples are used to justify how software itself is often poor, how the engineering of software leaves much to be desired, and how research in software engineering has not made enough progress to help overcome these weaknesses. However, these data and examples are presented and interpreted in ways that are arguably imbalanced. This imbalance, usually taken at face value, may be distracting the field from making significant progress towards improving the effective engineering of software, a goal the entire community shares. Research dichotomies, which tend to pit one approach against another, often subtly hint that there is a best way to engineer software or a best way to perform research on software. This, too, may be distracting the field from important classes of progress.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Osterweil L J, Ghezzi C, Kramer J et al. Determining the impact of software engineering research on practice. Computer, 2008, 41(3): 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fleishman J. MIDDLE EAST: Stop that download!. Los Angeles Times, 2008.

  3. Greenspan A. Monetary policy report to the congress. Humphrey-Hawkins Report, Board T. F. R. (ed.), February 24, 1998.

  4. Grand challenges in engineering. http://www.engineeringchallenges.org.

  5. CRA. Statistics on the American IT workforce. http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/itworkforce.php.

  6. The Standish Group Report. The Standish Group, 1995.

  7. Gibbs W. Software’s chronic crisis. Scientific American, 1994, 271(3): 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jorgensen M, Molokken-Ostvold K J. How large are software cost overruns? Critical comments on the Standish Group’s CHAOS reports. Information and Software Technology, 2006, 48(4): 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glass R L. Practical programmer: The Standish report: Does it really describe a software crisis? Communications of the ACM, 2006, 49(8): 15–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hartmann D. Interview: Jim Johnson of the Standish Group. http://www.infoq.com/articles/Interview-Johnson-Standish-CHAOS.

  11. Koskinen J. Software Maintenance Costs. http://www.cs.jyu.fi/~koskinen/smcosts.htm.

  12. Hailpern B, Santhanam P. Software debugging, testing, and verification. IBM Systems Journal, 2002, 41(1): 4–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boehm B W. Software Engineering Economics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Boehm B W, Sullivan K. Software engineering: A roadmap. In Proc. International Conference on Software Engineering, Limerick Ireland, June 4–11, 2000, pp.319–343.

  15. Lehman M, Belady L. Program evolution: Processes of software change. A.P.I.C. Studies In Data Processing, 1985, 27: 538.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Heeks R. Most e-Government-for-Development Projects Fail. How Can Risks be Reduced? IDPM Working Paper, The University of Manchester, 2003.

  17. Gallaher M P, Kropp B M. The economic impacts of inadequate infrastructure for software testing. National Institute of Standards, RTI-Health, Social, and Economics Research, May 2002.

  18. Myerson A. Automation Off Course in Denver. New York Times, 1994, pp.D1–2.

  19. Mars Polar Lander. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander.

  20. Moore’s Law. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore’s_law.

  21. Dijkstra E W. Chapter I: Notes on Structured Programming. Structured Programming, ACM Classic Books Series, Dahl O J, Dijkstra E W, Hoare C A R (eds.), London: Academic Press Ltd, 1972, pp.1–82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Dwyer M B, Hatcliff J, Robby R et al. Formal software analysis emerging trends in software model checking. In Proc. International Conference on Software Engineering, Minneapolis, USA, May 2007, pp.120–136.

  23. Nimmer J W, Ernst M D. Automatic generation of program specifications. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 2002, 27(4): 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bush W R, Pincus J D, Sielaff D J. A static analyzer for finding dynamic programming errors. Software Practice and Experience, 2000, 30(7): 775–802.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Empirical Software Engineering: An International Journal, Springer, US.

  26. Knight J, Leveson N. An experimental evaluation of the assumption of independence in multiversion programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1986, 12(1): 96–109.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Basili V, Green S. Software process evolution at the SEL. IEEE Software, 1994, 11(4): 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. J Brooks F P. Grasping reality through illusion — Interactive graphics serving science. In Proc. the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Washington DC, USA, May 1988, pp.1–11.

  29. Brooks F P. The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Anniversary Ed., Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1995.

  30. Sullivan K J, Griswold W G, Cai Y et al. The structure and value of modularity in software design. In Proc. the 8th European Software Engineering Conference held jointly with the 9th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering, Vienna, Austria, Sept. 2001, pp.99–108.

  31. Kim M, Bergman L, Lau T A et al. An ethnographic study of copy and paste programming practices in OOPL. In Proc. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, Lake Buena Vista, USA, Oct. 15–16, 2004, pp.83–92.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 98195-2350, U.S.A.

    David Notkin (Fellow, ACM, IEEE)

Authors
  1. David Notkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Notkin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Notkin, D. Software, Software Engineering and Software Engineering Research: Some Unconventional Thoughts. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 24, 189–197 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-009-9217-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-009-9217-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation