Abstract
In keeping with the themes and objectives of the conference, the authors of the five main papers attempted to approach software as a whole, each viewing it from a different perspective. The result may seem at first a bit like the proverbial report of a team of blind persons on their tactile investigation of an elephant: depending on the part they touched, it resembled a tree, a snake, a rope, and so on. At least they had an elephant to touch. Here, the authors and their commentators are grappling with a seemingly amorphous object, appropriately called software, which is invisible and intangible, yet produces visible and tangible effects in the world. To have those effects, it must run on hardware, and at a fundamental level it must fit that hardware so precisely as to become indistinguishable from it. Yet, at higher levels of abstraction software has an existence independent of hardware, which indeed has all but disappeared from the view of a large majority of people engaged in computing. Users and producers program virtual machines defined in terms of concepts rather than circuits and reflecting human purposes rather than computer architecture. Software encompasses both the product and the means of that process. That is, one may think in terms of virtual machines because software exists to translate the virtual into the real. Software is thus multilayered, and complexity makes it hard to see through the layers. Depending on where one stands and how one tries to grab hold of it, software assumes a variety of appearances.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See, for example, David Gries (ed.), Programming Methodology: A Collection of Articles by Members of IFIP WG2.3 (New York/Heidelberg/Berlin, 1978).
Note that, quite independently of one another, Tomayko, MacKenzie, and Aspray/Ensmenger chose to begin with reference to NATO Conference.
M.D. Mcllroy, “Mass Produced Software Components,” in P. Naur and B. Randell (eds.), Software Engineering. Report on a Conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee (Brussels, January 1969), 138–50; at 138–9.
John von Neumann, “Probabilistic Logics and the Synthesis of Reliable Organisms from Unreliable Components” (1952), in The Papers of John von Neumann on Computing and Computer Theory, ed. William Aspray and Arthur Burks (Cambridge, MA/Los Angeles, 1987).
See, for example, W. Bernard Carlson and Michael E. Gorman, “Understanding Invention as a Cognitive Process: The Case of Thomas Edison and Early Motion Pictures, 1888–91”, Social Studies of Science 20,3 (1990): 387–440, and
Michael S. Mahoney, “Issues in the History of Computing”, in Thomas J. Bergin and Rick G. Gibson (eds.), History of Programming Languages II (New York, 1996), 772–81; esp. 773–5 (“Documenting Practice”).
Philip Kraft, Programmers and Managers: The Routinization of Computer Programming in the United States (New York/Heidelberg/Berlin, 1977);
Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (New York/London, 1974); Karl Marx, Capital, Volume I, Part IV, esp. Chap. 15.
Ford’s workers were not entirely powerless in times of a labor shortage, since they could vote with their feet. An annual turnover rate of 300% in 1913 led Ford to introduce the $5, 8-hour day, and the sensitivity of his system to interruptions from injuries prompted intense concern with worker safety. That turnover, by the way, considerably exceeds the rates of turnover among programmers reported by Ensmenger and Aspray.
For a generally positive appraisal, see Michael Cusumano, Japans’ Software Factories: A Challenge to U.S. Management (New York/Oxford, 1991).
Where one state, Texas, is now moving toward licensing software engineers, it is encountering resistance from the software engineering community itself. Foremost among the arguments against the measure is that practitioners cannot agree on how competence should be measured. An effort several years ago by the New Jersey legislature to introduce licensing of programmers met with opposition from companies such as AT&T Bell Labs on the grounds that programming of some sort is part of most their employees’ work.
It has also been a problem for empirical research on programming. See Ruven E. Brooks, “Studying Programmer Behavior Experimentally: The Problems of Proper Methodology”, Communications of the ACM 23,4 (1980): 207–13; esp. 210.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mahoney, M.S. (2002). Probing the Elephant: How Do the Parts Fit Together?. In: Hashagen, U., Keil-Slawik, R., Norberg, A.L. (eds) History of Computing: Software Issues. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04954-9_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04954-9_25
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-07653-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-04954-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive