This template is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
I disagree that it should replace that template. That template is about a multidisciplinary process that includes software engineering but is not summed up by software engineering. Software engineering describes a skill that evolves much faster than any one process. You are doing both software engineers and those who work with software engineers a disservice by trying to monopolize all the software development terminology under the umbrella of "software engineering." Oicumayberight (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You can try to oversimplify it by saying that software engineering is the main discipline. I'm sure there are product developers and project managers that would disagree with you, but that's beside the point. The point is that software development is multidisciplinary. You're trying to pull the disciplines of "software development" that have little to do with engineering under the umbrella of "software engineering" as if those functions are a less important subclass of engineering. The article and the template are titled "software development process", not "software engineering process". You are just in denial that development is broader in scope than engineering. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The other template was better because it laid it out in steps and was highly visible at the top for those who may have only been interested in a particular step. I know that software engineering is not a step-by-step process, so I think it's futile to have software engineering template replace the software development process template. There should be two separate templates, one for the broader software development process and the other for the field or skill of software engineering. Your oversimplifying both subjects by merging the templates. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I personnaly consider the development of programming languages an other field of computer science than software engineering. Now I have moved the above list of prominent people from the history of software engineering to the History of programming languages.
Now I do think Bertrand Meyer are Douglas McIlroy famous computer scientists, but I don't see them as software engineers. That is why I will remove the from the template. I am not so sure about Martin Fowler either, and if beeing a notable author is enough to be listed in the template.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Bertrand Meyer created the Design by Contract methodology, which is an important contribution to Software Engineering. He is not known just by the creation of the Eiffel programming language. Douglas McIlroy created the concept of reusable software modules (see his seminal paper in the 1st Software Engineering conference, sponsored by NATO) and also invented the pipes-and-filters connections in UNIX, which was an advance in Software Architecture and in Programming-in-the-Large. So both should appear in the list.
As to Martin Fowler, he is a popularizer of Software Engineering advances. I do not know what contributions he has given to the state of the art in Software Engineering. So the inclusion of his name would probably be somewhat harder to defend, if we are willing to include only people who have advanced the frontiers of the field. --Antonielly (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess we could (re)add Bertrand Meyer and Niklaus Wirth. This is no exact science. The bounderies of Software engineering are vague, but I like to keep the developers of programming tools separate. I think the contributions of Douglas McIlroy and David Parnas are more in that field ...just as the contributions of the even more notable computer scientists mentioned above.
I am no real expert in this field, so I am open for suggestions. I do have been developing the Wikipedia representation of systems engineering, and have experienced that this field like software engineering is a very specific field with it's own names.
Now I just started this template, and I know there is a lot to improve here and this will take time. I don't agree on one of your other choices. The template is not just a listing of notable software engineers. They should have an Wikpedia article and I prefer a longer Wikipedia article, explaining their work in relation to Software engineering. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
However, Douglas McIlroy and David Parnas cannot be left out since they are two of the founders of Software Engineering, and active participants of the first Software Engineering conference ever, sponsored by NATO. They are not just tool developers; they have made important contributions to establish the conceptual framework of the field.
If you disagree with those, please write here in the talk page. (But please tell whether you are now convinced that the names Douglas McIlroy and David Parnas merit the inclusion.)
By the way, I completely agree with you that an important contribution to Computer science or to the Programming language field does not automatically qualify as an important contribution to Software Engineering (a related but different field). I share with you the intention of only adding to the template the names of remarkable Software Engineering contributors and/or practitioners. --Antonielly (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I will study the presents of Charles Bachman some more, and get back on this.
Now removing "Tim Berners-Lee" doesn't make much sense to me either. He seems to be generaly considered a "software engineer", see for example here: Designed by the British software engineer TIM BERNERS-LEE (1955-) the web is a democratic medium which is equally available to us all. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Tim Berners-Lee was removed from the template because the Wikipedia article about him does not mention any direct, relevant contribution to Software Engineering. The Web is an (important) application, but not a direct contribution explicitly made to advance or popularize the Software Engineering field: it is neither a software development techniques book nor a new methodology, for instance.
There seems to be a consensus here in the talk page that tool creators should be left out of the template. Otherwise, we should also add names such as Dan Bricklin, the creator of VisiCalc, and Dennis Ritchie/Ken Thompson, the original developers of UNIX. I believe we do not want that.
In my opinion, we should include in the "Software Engineers" section only the subset of software engineers who are notable for their Software Engineering contributions, not software engineers who aren't notable for their Software Engineering contributions but who used Software Engineering techniques to create important applications. --Antonielly (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I do think some of the new articles you added needs some improvement
Now I do think the number of people mentioned in the template should be limited to say the current 20 to 25 names. Otherwise the template is growing to large. We can list all people of the Category:Software engineering and or Category:Software engineering researchers. We have to make a choice. And indeed some people have to be removed again. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Underlying question of the SE boundaries
I think there is an underlaying question of where are the boundaries of software engineering? Which are it's main subjects? How did this field develope? And which subjects could be considered related to related fields? And which are the related fields of software engineering. These are questions, I think, which should have to be answered in the software engineering article.
In the above discussion I think some related fields have been mentioned now:
Data base, data base design and Data base management.
The web and Web applications
Programming and tool creatings
I just noticed Carlo Ghezziother (2003) in "Fundamentals of Software Engineering" (2nd Edition) page 8-12 names the following five SE related area's of computer science:
I separated the related field section. I noticed this section could/should be more specific. It doesn't seem to make sense to add mathematics and management as related fields. I think this could/should be more specified.
The Wikipedia article about Tom Gruber does not mention any contribution to the Software Engineering field. Web Engineering, AI, ontologies and Semantic Web are not Software Engineering subjects. Therefore, his name should not appear in this template until contributions to Software Engineering are mentioned in the article about him.
I have removed from the template the names Charles Bachman and Tom Gruber. Those names can be readded if someone finds important Software Engineering contributions from them and mentions such contributions on the articles of the respective researchers. While this does not happen, those names should be left out of this template. --Antonielly (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed Douglas McIlroy, because I think (almost) nothing in his current Wikipedia article justifies his listing here. I do think this article should be improved first, before relisting. I think this also counts for some other articles listed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed Philippe Kruchten as well because, his current article doesn't explain his existence here. Also the 4+1 view model doesn't seem that important to Software engineering. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section here, and added it to the Software engineer article. At the moment this section hardly gives any information and links to other Wikipedia articles. The three items listed are stubs, and I oppose the listing of stubs in any wikipedia article.
Now I have removed some other names as well, and we had some previous discussion. Maybe I have to explain these actions some more. I think this template shouldn't reflect the general status of the field of software engineering. I should focuss on the Wikipedia representation of this field. It is a summary of the main things Wikipedia has to offer.
Back to this subject. I have been developing some other templates as well and I can't recall ever seen (engineering) awards being added in other templates. There are other ways to bring this to the peoples attention, see for example the Turing award template.
Is it not officially recognized as a canonical development model/strategy?
If not, sad, cause there is no equal to be found in these dusty old white-paper meet-the-deadline-and-not-much-else standards from the days of punch-cards and vacuum tubes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
New criteria for inclusion
The recent add of Stephen J. Mellor in the template has made me wonder about the criteria for inclusion. I checked Google Scholar and found that Mellor is quiet a highly cited author. This made me wonder about the other persons listed in template, and I did some more checking with Google Scholar. Google scholar listed the following number of citations of the three best-cited articles:
Some of those authors have higher numbers, but they are not all to be considered software engineers (especially Sowa en Zachman). -- Mdd (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is good stuff Mdd! I didn't realize that Stephen Mellor is also an Agile Manifesto Signatory, which adds to his importance. Your table above bolsters the arguement to add Phillipe Krutchen with his contributions in Software Architecture and RUP. Lwoodyiii (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)