Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:00, 24 October 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software. Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Systems: Systems engineering High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems engineering.

Archives

2006 - 2008

Disambiguation

I have altered the dab page Software development (disambiguation) to bring it in line with the manual of style which makes it clear that dab pages are for navigation to articles with the same or virtually the same name which could be confused by readers. Since there are only two such aricles (this one and Software development process) we can avoid the use of a dab page by the use of hatnotes. Please do not revert again without reading MOS:DAB. Abtract (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it and paid special attention to the part that says "ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." The disambiguation page had 6 links when I edited it last. All the links were relevant and could be considered synonymous with "software development". The articles don't have to contain those words in the title. Even if there are only two articles that you consider relevant, there's also a note in the style guide that says "Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless." In this case I think it is necessary as there seems to be a war of words between professions, endlessly reframing what it means to develop software. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Do as you will but quoting "ignore" is a bit feeble. Dab pages are to assist navigation to articles with the same(ish) title not for lists of articles about the same concept. But hey you will no doubt wend your merry way and some day another editor who actually knows what he is talking about will step in and cleanup after you. Have fun. :) Abtract (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I left the cleanup tag on there because I welcome any sort of clean up as long as it doesn't oversimplify the subject. The messy disambiguation page may be a reflection of just how messy the art of software development is in reality. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between software development and software engineering

If "software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering," then shouldn't software engineering be categorized under software development and not vice-versa as it stands now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.59.104 (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge Software development and Software development process

I propose to merge these two half articles into one complete article. The two articles are about one and the same subject. The current introduction of this article makes no sense any way. I am going to change this sone with a more reliable version. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I merged the two articles just to show that together they fitt very well. Now I don't oppose to a separate software development process at the moment it doesn't seems needed. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

At the moment the Software development process is a redirect to the Software development article. I will try to create a new article there, using the German Misplaced Pages artikel as an example. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge: One article is about a concept. The other is about a process. There are eight other translations to this article which you've ignored. If you want to experiment, use the WP:Sandbox. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This argument makes little sense. If you read Talk:Software development process you will see that there are not just eight other translations. They are all different. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Merge - in addition to the massive difference between concepts, let's not rush forward: even AfD's take 5 days. -t BMW c- 21:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a compromis here. leave this article as it is and restore the software development process. This won't hurt anything. I am in favour of restoring the software development process anyway. I have allready explained on the its talkpage there, and if you check my recent edits, I started some new design. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the article as is. See my reply below. I would have been fine with most of your edits on the software development process page had you simply answered the request that I made on your talk page to not over-simplify the title of your new template to software engineering. Software engineering is an oversimplification of software development. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

An improved Software development article

I have put quite some effort in merging the two articles an creating this new article, see here. I won't simply let this refert. I have multiple arguments:

• This article has improved severly
• This article is fitting in the larger whole of wikipedia, for example in the computer science template.
• There is all kinds of opportunaty to recreate a more sofisticated Software development process aricle.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's improved. I think it worked fine as it was as a brief overview of the broad subject for those who were interested in the broader multi-disciplinary aspects of the subject. It was just a starting point for those (including the less technically savvy) to branch out into the articles of whatever related sub-disciplines they may have been interested in. The template was more visible at the top of the page and allowed for quick links to those who may have been interested in the related disciplines to skip right to it. The software engineering and related technical disciplines were equally represented at the top. Those who wanted more step by step details about the software development process could go to that article if they wanted to. There was no need to merge the articles because this one was about a broad concept, and that one was about particular processes.

Now it is weighted heavily in favor of engineering, making it difficult for the less technically savvy to feel qualified to even have an opinion on the subject. This may discourage any young readers from pursuing careers in any of the other related disciplines besides the highly technical software engineering. The template now is almost hidden at the bottom. And the most important part of the article IMO, the part that discusses the marketing aspects of software development, have also been pushed to the bottom along with the related disciplines of marketing in software development as if they are so much less important than the technical and logistical details. It's that same ill consideration of the marketing aspects that led to much of the bug-filled and poorly designed software that saturates the market today. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored the article in his previous state, see here, I think, it is again reflecting a (your) personal point of view, that "marketing is the most important aspect of software development". Now I do agree on some other things you say:

• Yes this could be a nice overview with a multidisciplinair perspective, but it doesn't have to be short. What it needs is a good introduction, and a good structure.
• Yes this is a starting point which should motivate young readers to whatever related sub-disciplines.
• Yes (and this maybe will surprise you) the template was more visible at the top of the page, and the template itself was simple.

But I don't think the current article is giving such a clear multidisciplinair motivating perspective. I think this article focuss to much on marketing. It is confusing the way articles like Software development, Software development process and Software engineering don't really interact. I think there is a clear structure, call it a "back bone", missing. Now if you look at the main contributions I have created so far in the field of software engineering, see here, you can't keep up that I am only trying to simplify thinks. Can you follow me so far? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I can take your word for it that you are just trying to simplify. I can even appreciate your effort and willingness to improve the articles. What I don't want to see here or in any of the related software development articles is an over-simplification that skews the meaning of "development" towards the more specific "engineering." And BTW, I don't consider marketing the most important aspect. I just consider it deserving of equal attention to the engineering aspect.

I'm willing to discuss any changes you wish to make here. I'm less concerned with the changes that you want to make with the software development process article because it's understandable why it would be more detailed and technical. I just think the old template should remain in each of the articles that discuss the multidisciplinary aspects at the top because it makes it easier to step through the related articles with it. The new template you created should be more specifically about the software engineering field and discipline. And this article should remain as neutral as it was without going into detail about steps in any one software development process. If you think the engineering aspect was under-represented in this article, it's probably because you (obviously from an engineering background) rarely hear the marketing aspect mentioned as Alan Davis explained it. But I'm open to the idea that it could be under-represented. Voice your concerns here in the talk page and we can both find a solution. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I won't expand this article for now but will search for a solution to develop them both in there current format. I will (probably) get back on this. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I still have got some ideas about improving this article, and I will try to present them one at the time. I will make some subchapters, here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Criterea for this article

In the past discussion we (seemed to agree on) some criterea for this article. This should:

• present a starting point which should motivate young readers to whatever related sub-disciplines.
• give a multidisciplinair perspective.

I have some more remarks here:

• There are more starting articles here: computer science, software and software engineering and in a way software development process... and the starting points of the disciplines related here, such as project management, marketing... and?
• I allready started that I think this article needs good introduction, and a good structure.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Software is the first link of the article, and software engineering is the second link. Software development process is a big and bold link at the top and is the title of the template, which repeats the link to software engineering. I'm not sure what more needs to be said about the links because any curious reader will just click on them and go to those articles. IMO, the only thing this article should say about the sub-disciplines is how they relate to each other in the big picture. It's not meant to sell any one over the other because each reader will already have an idea of what sub-discipline they are interested in before finding this article. The article doesn't say too much about any of the subjects linked because it's more of a starting point to read other articles, almost like a disambiguation page.

As for computer science, I don't see that as a discipline in and of itself as much as it is the foundation for the applied discipline of software engineering, amongst other disciplines that relate to computing, including hardware. But I don't see any harm in listing that in the see also section. Oicumayberight (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You start listing the links in the current article. Maybe I haven't explained myself right. When I stated "There are more starting articles", I meant there are more starting points in Misplaced Pages for an outsider to start reading about software development. This is just something which can be taken into consideration, No more no less. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure what your point is here. Could you expand on the relevance or what you think needs to change? Oicumayberight (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I wrote this is to get some criterea to judge the alternatives, which come up in the other talk items. No more no less. Sorry if I don't respond more directly. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The introduction

The current introduction needs improvement. I think it isn't offering a neutral point of view. I will explain what is wrong with this intro:

Software development is the translation of a user need or marketing goal into a software product. Software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products. This is in contrast to marketing software, which may or may not involve new product development.

It is often difficult to isolate whether engineering or marketing is more responsible for the success or failure of a software product to satisfy customer expectations. This is why it is important to understand both processes and facilitate collaboration between both engineering and marketing in the total software development process. Engineering and marketing concerns are often balanced in the role of a project manager that may or may not use that title.

Because software development may involve compromising or going beyond what is required by the client, a software development project may stray into processes not usually associated with engineering such as market research, human resources, risk management, intellectual property, budgeting, crisis management, etc. These processes may also cause the role of business development to overlap with software development.

This intro is talking about marketing in every of the first six sentences. I think this is confusing. Now I allready proposed an alternative intro:

Software development are the set of activities that results in software products. Software development may include new development, modification, reuse, re-engineering, maintenance, or any other activities that result in software products.

The term software development may also refer to computer programming, the process of writing and maintaining the source code.

I think this introduction does offer a neutral point of view. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A few counter points

1. As mentioned above, software engineering is the 2nd article linked and is linked twice at the top.
2. Marketing is the 3rd article linked and is only linked once in a sentence that refers to the processes as "software engineering" processes.
3. Engineering is also mentioned in 5 of those 6 sentences.

Again, it maybe your lack of familiarity with "marketing" that makes that word stand out more to you specifically, like a word that is only understood as a dirty word by specific cultures, in this case professions. If marketing seems over-represented in this article, it's probably because it's under-represented everywhere else on the wikipedia that discusses software development. In fact, before this article was started, the term "software development" use to be redirected to the software engineering page which made no mention of marketing at that time, implying that the concept in its entirety was summed up by engineering. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make some counterpoints, then this should be adressed to the new opening I am presenting. Not to the your own opening, which should be moved anyway. If you look at the new opening, this isn't naming marketing, not systems engineering. Maybe this is a good thing. I oppose the references to marketing and you oppose the references to software engineering.

On other thing about the marketing fixation I am opposing. I think the word shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction. Now I noticed I am at least the 4th person here starting about this. I will reconstruct:

1. You started this article 25 Oct 2008 (2 years ago) with a version, see here, which also containted 6 references in the first 6 sentences to marketing. A few hours latter user:Allan McInnes was suspecting original research, see here. A long discussion followed but the article's intro has never been changed much eversince.
2. Two months later 27 December 2006 User:ChrisLoosley questioned the articles focus, see here, on Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS), stating: In many situations in which software development occurs, this article's references to the marketing are meaningless. However, this article introduces the role of marketing in software development in its first sentence, and contains further references to marketing throughout. Consequently, it appears to be only about the development of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software products by software vendors.
3. An anominous user 6 months ago wasn't that nice, see here. He wrote: The use of the term marketing and its association with software development becomes from superfluous to ludicrous from the start of this article. Surely one of the worst I ve read on wikipedia.

Now this has nothing to do with my presumptioned lack of familiarity with "marketing". It is simply a matter of how to right a neutral opening to a Misplaced Pages article.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The once negative responses to this article has been primarily from those with obvious engineering backgrounds and has since changed to positive. I'm not sure if as many with marketing or business backgrounds have seen this article, but I'm sure they wouldn't feel the same way as the anonymous user. As for User:ChrisLoosley, his points were well addressed and it appears that he was satisfied with the article after that because he kept it on his watch page doing nothing more than protecting it from vandalism months later. As for user:Allan McInnes, I learned a lot from him and we came to a compromise. He even helped me edit the article and added supporting references. Some of your criticism maybe in opposition to the input of a fellow software engineer. So if your saying that marketing has no place in this article, that debate was settled in the Alan Davis book and in the archived talk pages by all but one anonymous user with no real counter-point. Maybe you shouldn't have archived those debates so soon if you felt that they were unresolved. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't "oppose the references to software engineering" as you say. I included references to the software engineering article when I started this article. If you "oppose the references to marketing" as you say, then that's a serious confession. Marketing involvement in subject of software development are well documented. It would be difficult for one to assume good faith edits if you have a problem with marketing involvement in software development. Perhaps you should reconsider the neutrality of what you are trying to do here. Also reconsider just how controversial the subject of software engineering is with its long archive history enough to warrant a separate wikipedia article. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. When I say introduction. I mean the introduction of this article. I state

"marketing shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction" ... of this article

and you assume taht I state

"that marketing has no place in this article".

Please remember. This is only about the introductions of the article. Now you have given some explation. What I really would like to know is, what your problem is with the new opening I presented?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the new opening you presented is that it oversimplifies the subject especially if you take out the parts of the article that really should be in the software development process article. All that would be left in this article is an opening. The whole article is a brief introduction that doesn't need to be any more brief regarding "what is" software development. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The current introduction seems to be based on corrupted sources

Oicumayberight claims that the new opening is oversimplifies the subject. But there seems something very wrong here? The current introduction sentence claims to be based on two sources:

Software development is the translation of a user need or marketing goal into a software product.

Those two are:

1. Birrell, N.D. (1985). A Practical Handbook for Software Development. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-25462-0.
2. DRM Associates (2002). "New Product Development Glossary". Retrieved 2006-10-29.

Now:

1. The content of the first book does not mentions marketing in any chapter.
2. And the second source is exactly stating:

A set of activities that results in software products. Software development may include new development, modification, reuse, re-engineering, maintenance, or any other activities that result in software products.

And this was the new introduction I implemented. I wonder if there even exists a reliable source for the current opening sentence. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I also checked the third source, see here and I found nothing which even looked like the second sentence:

Software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products.

I can only conclude one thing: The introduction here is basaed on corrupted sources. This shouldn't be here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The structure of a (short) overview article

This article hasn't got the structure of an overview article. I mean this structure:

Contents

1 Various approaches to software development

2 See also

3 References

4 Further reading

The question remains:

• What the introduction should be? Now I allready made that a separate talk item.
• What "the various approaches to software development" section should explain? At the moment:
  • it only mentions that there are several approaches
  • and then it lists the software development activities

This is not my idea of an giving an overview. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are several approaches is more the point of the software development process article. I didn't add the "Various approaches to software development" section. I did think it was a bit redundant considering there is a separate article for the process. But maybe the person who added it, thought that this article was lacking in content and figured that a little more needed to be said about the process. I just added a "main article" tag to the section so any reader will know right away that they are only getting a brief overview of what is being said in greater detail in the other article.

What we want to avoid is making this article too much about details that detract from the big picture. The details are in the related articles, which is why the template is so important. This article answers the question of "what it is." The software development process article answers the question of "how it's done." The related articles answer even more specific questions about specific disciplines and models. I think the subject matter is too big and too important to be one article. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I noticed an anominous user:24.79.228.146 created the "Various approaches to software development" section, just 2.5 months ago. See here. Just before that, this article of yours was a stub explaining the link between marketing and software development, see here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The several approaches

I keep wondering about the several approaches mentioned in the first chapter? Could these be listed? Or is this undetermined? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comments in the previous section. Also I'm not against deleting that section or reducing it to a paragraph that only emphasizes the importance of knowing that their are several approaches. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

My question here is: Could these be listed? Or is this undetermined?

--Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO they are not needed in the article, but if you want to list them they should not go into detail. The most I would suggest is one sentence per approach contrasting the differences between other approaches. But again, I think that's what the software development process article is for. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Images

If this article should motivate it should contain some images. Any ideas? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure if it makes sense. I haven't had much luck keeping pictures I chose remain on wikipedia, especially if the article is about a concept. I've had several abstract pictures deleted from many of the articles I frequently edit. After awhile, I just figured "why bother."

I like pictures too, but there seems to be a collective lack of taste on wikipedia that doesn't allow any picture representing concepts or that aren't clear and complete unmistakable examples of what is being discussed without selling an individual product and agreed upon by every editor/user. I don't know what you would use that wouldn't be quickly deleted by some other user who didn't like the style, the content, or just plain didn't like feeling left out because he/she doesn't get why that picture is representative of the concept. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I can image it must be hard to find images expressing the software development and marketing link. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A separate software development markting article

Three questions:

• Is there a separate article about the role of software development and marketing?
• What theories software development and marketing exists? How are they nammed? Do they have Misplaced Pages articles?
• Which scientists are involved here? Do they have articles in Misplaced Pages that refer to software development and marketing theories?

Oicumayberight stated that marketing is the most important aspect of software development. Now this could be important in practice. I am not going to argue about that. But Misplaced Pages isn't concerned with practice. It tries to represent the current knowlegde. So the important Misplaced Pages question here is, is this so important in theory. Are there a lot of books and articles about it, and scientists concerned with this matter. If there is there should be a series of Misplaced Pages articels possible here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't state that "marketing is the most important aspect of software development." That would be a biased statement, which is actually a bias that I don't have. If I do have a bias, it's with design and project management, fields which I believe bridge the gap between engineering and marketing.

Now to answer the question, there are many software business and marketing related articles in the see also section. But it makes sense that there are less marketing related articles on wikipedia because wikipedia was started by software engineers sharing programming ideas. There is also a list of further reading books at the bottom about the software development industry which includes business and marketing concerns. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't find any real answers here. Maybe you can take the time to answer my questions one by one. I am intersted in real names, real Misplaced Pages articles. You have been monitoring this situation for two years now, and you must have some ideas? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Is there a separate article about the role of software development and marketing?

If you are saying that none of the articles listed in the see also section are about marketing involvement in software development, then perhaps you should read more than the titles. Also consider that most of the articles that should mention marketing, may have excluded use of the word because they were written with a software engineering bias, or perhaps references to marketing were carefully removed at times. The requirements analysis and functional specifications are ones that IMO carefully exclude use of the word "marketing" despite the fact that marketing is usually the primary stakeholder and is heavily involved in those steps of the process. But that's just one opinion speaking from experience from working with major software companies. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

2. What theories software development and marketing exists? How are they named? Do they have Misplaced Pages articles?

If you read some of the books in the further reading section, I'm sure you'll find some. Maybe you can add them to the article once you do. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Which scientists are involved here? Do they have articles in Misplaced Pages that refer to software development and marketing theories?

Since neither software development nor marketing are an exact science, I doubt you'll find a "software development scientist" or even a "marketing scientist" for that matter. And computer technicians simply calling their field of study a science (as if computers are a natural phenomenon instead of synthetically manufactured) doesn't make them any more qualified to say what works or who should have an opinion on the subject. But I'm sure you'll find some scholarly opinions such as the Alan Davis quote in the article. Just because software involves computers doesn't mean that it ends with computers. Since some software requires a human element known as an end user, it's impossible to mathematically calculate or even predict how everything will work with all software. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a shocking conlusion here that there are no real articles about marketing software development, possible theories and scientists involved in Misplaced Pages? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

False conclusion. There's just not an article with that specific title or one that is exclusively about marketing involvement because marketing is applied in so much more than software and most of what marketing does involves other departments. The closest one to what your expecting to see would probably be the marketing strategies for product software article. There are no articles about "software engineering for the porno industry," but that doesn't mean software engineers don't contribute to developing porn software. And again, you won't find a scientific theory because software development is not a science. Oicumayberight (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. There is one marketing strategies for product software. Just one? No theory? No scientists involved?

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

I will leave it for now, with the point listed above. Please comment on particular ideas at these separate items and with general ideas here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Collection of notable definitions / descriptions of Software development

I propose to list a view defintions and descriptions from notable scientists and/or reliable sources. Now in the past discussion between Oicumayberight, and Allan McInnes already several descriptions of software engineering came up.

• In an interview, Joel Spolsky in 2001 says:

What is software development? Well, it ain't what you thought it was in college, when your professors taught you about making loops and objects. That's a part of it, but if your software is going to be popular, you are going to have to deal with a million other things: writing manuals, creating good looking icons if you have a GUI, testing, recruiting good programmers, making a product that people want, usability testing, dealing with Norman the Cranky Tester, and about 100 other things that take up most of your time.

• Rational's Koni Buhrer in 2000 says

Is software development today a craft, an engineering discipline, or something in between? Many software developers would probably assert that software development is not yet an established engineering discipline, but it is well on its way to becoming one... I think that is a delusion. In my view, software development is pure craft.

• In Steve McConnell in 1998 says:

Software development is art. It is science. It is craft, fire fighting, archeology, and a host of other activities. It is as many different things as there are different people programming. But the proper question is not "What is software development?" but rather "What should software development be?" In my opinion, the answer to that question is clear: Software development should be engineering. Is it? No. Should it be? Unquestionably, yes.

On 23:31, 29 October 2006 Allan McInnes came up with:

Software development is the translation of user needs into a software product.

On 22 October 2008 17:36] I took the second source Alan McInnes presented (see here:

Software development are the set of activities that results in software products. Software development may include new development, modification, reuse, re-engineering, maintenance, or any other activities that result in software products.

References

1. [http://webword.com/interviews/spolsky.html
2. From craft to science: Searching for First Principles of Software Development,
3. The Art, Science, and Engineering of Software Development
4. Birrell, N.D. (1985). A Practical Handbook for Software Development. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-25462-0.
5. DRM Associates (2002). "New Product Development Glossary". Retrieved 2006-10-29.
6. DRM Associates (2002). "New Product Development Glossary". Retrieved 2006-10-29.

Further comments

The past section is just for collecting software development descriptions. Further comment here, please. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Replace corrupted source referenced intro with a neutral one

The whole present introduction of this article seems to be based on corrupted source references:

Software development is the translation of a user need or marketing goal into a software product. Software development is sometimes understood to encompass the processes of software engineering combined with the research and goals of software marketing to develop computer software products. This is in contrast to marketing software, which may or may not involve new product development.

It is often difficult to isolate whether engineering or marketing is more responsible for the success or failure of a software product to satisfy customer expectations. This is why it is important to understand both processes and facilitate collaboration between both engineering and marketing in the total software development process. Engineering and marketing concerns are often balanced in the role of a project manager that may or may not use that title.

Because software development may involve compromising or going beyond what is required by the client, a software development project may stray into processes not usually associated with engineering such as market research, human resources, risk management, intellectual property, budgeting, crisis management, etc. These processes may also cause the role of business development to overlap with software development.

What should be a general introduction of software development here, turns out to be be a POV fixation on the role of marketing in software developent. While there are many dozends articles about the engineering aspect in Misplaced Pages, there only seems to be one article about the role of marketing in software development. Instead of bringing balance here, the (almost sole) editor of the introduction user:Oicumayberight keeps insisting, that the term marketing should be kept in every sentence of the introduction, and shouldn't be in a separate paragraph. This simplification and typical fixation has been noticed by several other users, and each time user:Oicumayberight kept the discussion going without giving any real arguments.

Now after a long discussion with user:Oicumayberight, he argued that a new neutral introduction copied from (reliable) internet source, so called "it oversimplifies the subject".

Now it turns out to be that the current introduction user:Oicumayberight created two years ago, and has been defending eversince, seemd to be based on three corrupted sources, see previous discussion. I think this is completely unaccpetable. I ahve read most of the previous discussion and history of this article and user:Oicumayberight seem to be acting as if he is owns this article, and the subject of software development.

The solution here is simple:

• Keep this article neutral
• Keep this article based on reliable sources
• Keep that talking about marketing and software development in that one article
• And focuss in this article on the many dozends of Misplaced Pages articles about software development.

-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Further comment

I like to offer some help here, creating a neutral article here, and maybe add some reliable text to that one marketing article. This seems like a reasonable solution here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Almost 2 years ago to the day, this article was started because I went searching for information about software development on wikipedia and found very little about it other than oversimplification to programming. Anyone considering the neutrality of this page should also consider the neutrality of related articles and the sheer amount of participation of software engineers vs the other related disciplines on wikipedia involving software development in other articles. I fear that the implication here on wikipedia is a message to young prospective software developers searching the wikipedia for answers is a strongly biased message of "software engineering is all you need to know" which is simply not true. My evidence is that just two years ago, the term "software development" was redirected to software engineering which at that time said nothing about marketing and categorized the other disciplines as sub-disciplines of software engineering. Yes, I've been heavily involved in this article, but I don't consider myself the owner of the subject or the article. I don't even consider my self an expert on the subject. But I've worked with major software companies enough to know that its more than just software engineering. I've involved myself in editing and defending this article more than I've liked to, simply because I feel that not enough professors of software development other than software engineers know what kind of bias and compromise this article has had to overcome.

It appears that Marcel Douwe Dekker is taking the position here that because not enough has been said about marketing involvement in software elsewhere on the wikipedia, that even less should be said about it in this article. I see it quite the opposite. Because there is no shortage of information on the wikipedia about software engineering involvement in software development, you can't miss that it involves software engineering even from this article. His suggestions would make a difficult to find but important subject (marketing involvement in software development) even more difficult to find. From my experience, marketing research and decisions are a critical part of the software development process that's much more obvious in the work place than it is on wikipedia. It's no surprise that there's a bias towards software engineering on wikipedia, because wikipedia itself was originally started by software engineers for the purpose of sharing programming ideas. This very short article is the counterbalance, but it appears that he wants to make it even shorter and even less about marketing. His original intent was to bury the part about marketing at the bottom of a long article with his edit here. Now that he's agreed that most of the technical information should remain in its original software development process article, he won't leave well enough alone with this article. He wants to undo the compromises made between me and other respectable software engineers after weeks of painstaking debates and editing by harshly scrutinizing references that were put there by another software engineer as a result of the compromise and beating the dead horses that came from those once settled debates. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• All Software articles
• All Computing articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Start-Class Systems articles
• High-importance Systems articles
• Systems articles in systems engineering
• WikiProject Systems articles