This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I designed a new template here to replace the existing Template:Software development process. This new template has more possibilities to give a more detailled view on the field. At the moment some of the parts needs some more work, as always. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 09:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I am working on the listing of notable software engineers. I am using the following criterea for selection:
And not:
There was a list of developers of program languages in the History of software engineering article, see here:
Now I already moved this list to the History of programming languages article, which I think is an other field of computer science. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I like to add the following scientists
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I like to add the following software engineers
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The Topic outline of software engineering is listing the following 16 Software engineering methods/methodologies. I have put these in a historical order:
Now this list seems rather incomplete to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The Unified Process article lists some more methods, all refiment/refinements and variations of the Unified Process framework. (3 of 8 already listed above: Agile, Enterprise and Rational)
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 15:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Today three names have been added to the template (and I have removed two of them):
Now I wonder how these persons relate to other prominent people in the history of programming languages such as:
Now I have started a similar discussion about this on the talk page of the History of software engineering article, see here.
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)
I agree on most point you mentioned here:
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)
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:
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:
This seems like a good start for a new section in the Software engineering article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
A listing of the popularity of some of the subjects listed in the template, see here
Less then 10.000 visits a month:
Less then 10.000 visits a month:
For now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What were the contributions of Charles Bachman to Software engineering? He seems to be a very remarkable contributor to the field of Databases, but I do not know of his notable contributions to Software engineering. If there aren't any, his name should be removed from this template (and added to the Database template, if it exists). -- Antonielly ( talk) 11:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
User Pnahar added Mohamed Fayad to this list. Is this appropriate? Possible COI noted on Talk:Mohamed Fayad. -- Instantquail ( talk) 19:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I miss articles about the main Software Engineering awards. After they are created in Wikipedia, they should be mentioned in the "Prizes" section of the template. Some external links:
-- Antonielly ( talk) 13:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
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 67.98.176.66 ( talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
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:
Author | Number of citations |
Number of citations |
Number of citations |
---|---|---|---|
Kent Beck | 7248 | 4542 | 1493 |
Grady Booch | 8902 | 6040 | 5097 |
Fred Brooks | 3360 | 3381 | 288 |
Barry Boehm | 7001 | 4072 | 1652 |
Peter Chen | 7713 | 2544 | 2389 |
Ward Cunningham | 1198 | 894 | 562 |
Ole-Johan Dahl | 1259 | 852 | 747 |
Tom DeMarco | 3067 | 376 | 383 |
Martin Fowler | 4542 | 3864 | 1820 |
C.A.R. Hoare | 14969 | 4760 | 1926 |
Watts Humphrey | 3023 | 1420 | 574 |
Michael A. Jackson | 1192 | 1270 | 1158 |
Ivar Jacobson | 8902 | 5532 | 5097 |
James Martin | 3026 | 2013 | 1447 |
Stephen J. Mellor | 865 | 827 | 797 |
Bertrand Meyer | 7756 | 1744 | 1803 |
David Parnas | 4513 | 868 | 853 |
Winston W. Royce | 2467 | 529 | 18 |
James Rumbaugh | 9038 | 8902 | 5097 |
Niklaus Wirth | 1439 | 1385 | 1368 |
Edward Yourdon | 2937 | 1693 | 982 |
Victor Basili | 2201 | 1215 | 1126 |
I guess this table shows there is some reason to doubt the inclusion of Stephen J. Mellor. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
A new light on this matter occurs, when we take in account some of the authors who have been excluded, for example:
Author | Number of citations |
Number of citations |
Number of citations |
---|---|---|---|
Larry Constantine | 1693 | 1053 | 905 |
Philippe Kruchten | 3483 | 1917 | 347 |
Craig Larman | 2175 | 606 | 401 |
Douglas McIlroy | 1117 | 272 | 153 |
John F. Sowa | 4248 | 2869 | 855 |
John Zachman | 2140 | 855 | 363 |
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)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I designed a new template here to replace the existing Template:Software development process. This new template has more possibilities to give a more detailled view on the field. At the moment some of the parts needs some more work, as always. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 12:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 09:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I have responded on the Talk:Software engineering here -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I am working on the listing of notable software engineers. I am using the following criterea for selection:
And not:
There was a list of developers of program languages in the History of software engineering article, see here:
Now I already moved this list to the History of programming languages article, which I think is an other field of computer science. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I like to add the following scientists
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I like to add the following software engineers
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 23:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The Topic outline of software engineering is listing the following 16 Software engineering methods/methodologies. I have put these in a historical order:
Now this list seems rather incomplete to me. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 20:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The Unified Process article lists some more methods, all refiment/refinements and variations of the Unified Process framework. (3 of 8 already listed above: Agile, Enterprise and Rational)
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 15:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Today three names have been added to the template (and I have removed two of them):
Now I wonder how these persons relate to other prominent people in the history of programming languages such as:
Now I have started a similar discussion about this on the talk page of the History of software engineering article, see here.
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)
I agree on most point you mentioned here:
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)
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:
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:
This seems like a good start for a new section in the Software engineering article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 14:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
A listing of the popularity of some of the subjects listed in the template, see here
Less then 10.000 visits a month:
Less then 10.000 visits a month:
For now. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
What were the contributions of Charles Bachman to Software engineering? He seems to be a very remarkable contributor to the field of Databases, but I do not know of his notable contributions to Software engineering. If there aren't any, his name should be removed from this template (and added to the Database template, if it exists). -- Antonielly ( talk) 11:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
User Pnahar added Mohamed Fayad to this list. Is this appropriate? Possible COI noted on Talk:Mohamed Fayad. -- Instantquail ( talk) 19:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I miss articles about the main Software Engineering awards. After they are created in Wikipedia, they should be mentioned in the "Prizes" section of the template. Some external links:
-- Antonielly ( talk) 13:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
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 67.98.176.66 ( talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
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:
Author | Number of citations |
Number of citations |
Number of citations |
---|---|---|---|
Kent Beck | 7248 | 4542 | 1493 |
Grady Booch | 8902 | 6040 | 5097 |
Fred Brooks | 3360 | 3381 | 288 |
Barry Boehm | 7001 | 4072 | 1652 |
Peter Chen | 7713 | 2544 | 2389 |
Ward Cunningham | 1198 | 894 | 562 |
Ole-Johan Dahl | 1259 | 852 | 747 |
Tom DeMarco | 3067 | 376 | 383 |
Martin Fowler | 4542 | 3864 | 1820 |
C.A.R. Hoare | 14969 | 4760 | 1926 |
Watts Humphrey | 3023 | 1420 | 574 |
Michael A. Jackson | 1192 | 1270 | 1158 |
Ivar Jacobson | 8902 | 5532 | 5097 |
James Martin | 3026 | 2013 | 1447 |
Stephen J. Mellor | 865 | 827 | 797 |
Bertrand Meyer | 7756 | 1744 | 1803 |
David Parnas | 4513 | 868 | 853 |
Winston W. Royce | 2467 | 529 | 18 |
James Rumbaugh | 9038 | 8902 | 5097 |
Niklaus Wirth | 1439 | 1385 | 1368 |
Edward Yourdon | 2937 | 1693 | 982 |
Victor Basili | 2201 | 1215 | 1126 |
I guess this table shows there is some reason to doubt the inclusion of Stephen J. Mellor. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
A new light on this matter occurs, when we take in account some of the authors who have been excluded, for example:
Author | Number of citations |
Number of citations |
Number of citations |
---|---|---|---|
Larry Constantine | 1693 | 1053 | 905 |
Philippe Kruchten | 3483 | 1917 | 347 |
Craig Larman | 2175 | 606 | 401 |
Douglas McIlroy | 1117 | 272 | 153 |
John F. Sowa | 4248 | 2869 | 855 |
John Zachman | 2140 | 855 | 363 |
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)