Maybe applied with formal methods like TLA+ it could become one (I don't know enough about that) but the very fact that I can write a program with a few lines of code, run it twice, and have different unreproducible results invalidates the definition of "exact science".
Well,
Back at my UNI, studying CS, I was under the "exact sciences and technology" department.
Make of it what you want.
The fact that software development is so often referred to as "art" applies mostly (as it should) to UI (in my humble opinion for marketing purposes). UI consists up to 1%-10% of your typical projects codebase.
Generalizing such references leads to phenomena such as "terminology inflation", "tech booble" and other characterizations most relevant to marketing and/or financial context rather than software development, which I'm pretty sure most of us want nothing to do with.
Now If you can truly get different and/or unpredictable outcomes from the same application/script then please my good sir do go public so the world can witness your awesomeness.
Back at my UNI, studying CS, I was under the "exact sciences and technology" department.
I don't think computer science (which is indeed an exact science) and programming are the same thing, that's why I disagreed. If you had written "CS is an exact science" I wouldn't have replied. Hope you can understand my point.
Now If you can truly get different and/or unpredictable outcomes from the same application/script then please my good sir do go public so the world can witness your awesomeness.
I was referring to non deterministic concurrency, it's not hard to write a program that has different outcomes.
Definitely not an exact science imho :D
Maybe applied with formal methods like TLA+ it could become one (I don't know enough about that) but the very fact that I can write a program with a few lines of code, run it twice, and have different unreproducible results invalidates the definition of "exact science".
Doesn't it?
First and foremost:EDIT: I'm deleting this but varnish thinks otherwise...
Well,
Back at my UNI, studying CS, I was under the "exact sciences and technology" department.
Make of it what you want.
The fact that software development is so often referred to as "art" applies mostly (as it should) to UI (in my humble opinion for marketing purposes). UI consists up to 1%-10% of your typical projects codebase.
Generalizing such references leads to phenomena such as "terminology inflation", "tech booble" and other characterizations most relevant to marketing and/or financial context rather than software development, which I'm pretty sure most of us want nothing to do with.
Now If you can truly get different and/or unpredictable outcomes from the same application/script then please my good sir do go public so the world can witness your awesomeness.
Hi Michael,
I don't think computer science (which is indeed an exact science) and programming are the same thing, that's why I disagreed. If you had written "CS is an exact science" I wouldn't have replied. Hope you can understand my point.
I was referring to non deterministic concurrency, it's not hard to write a program that has different outcomes.
You can hardly classify a bug as the rule, or draw conclusions from exceptions for that matter.
I can't see how someone can program without practicing cs (knowingly or otherwise, good or bad is another issue).
I can't see how error intolerant systems (eg: medical equipment) can be built upon anything other than an exact science.
Meme reads: "Change my mind" not "Change YOUR mind" :P