From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Mar 21 18:37:26 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2LMbQiu028342 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2LMbJU4069870 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:37:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 12985 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 22:30:38 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 22:30:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 12952 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 22:30:37 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 22:30:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 15745 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 22:30:22 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 22:30:22 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4003984 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:30:22 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 16121 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 22:30:21 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 22:30:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 25589 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 22:30:21 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 22:30:21 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2LMULl7028201 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:30:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2LMULVS028200 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:30:21 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703212230.l2LMULVS028200@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:30:21 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: implementation and engineering To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2893/Wed Mar 21 15:48:02 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 640 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: implementation and engineering ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Duncan writes: | Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:50:23 -0400 | From: Bill Duncan | Subject: implementation and engineering | | Our current discussion on the concept of implementation seems to reflect | the engineering side of CS. Does engineering have a well defined | concept of implementation? I don't know; are there any engineers out there? But, Bill, why do you think our discussion is reflecting an engineering aspect? From owner-cse584-sp07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Wed Mar 21 19:30:31 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2LNUVe9029709 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l2LNUQjW072906 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 12358 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 23:30:26 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 23:30:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 27958 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 23:30:25 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 23:30:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 26326 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 23:30:11 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 23:30:11 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 4005142 for CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:11 -0400 Delivered-To: cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu Received: (qmail 4697 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 23:30:11 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 23:30:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 6932 invoked from network); 21 Mar 2007 23:30:10 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 21 Mar 2007 23:30:10 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2LNUAuL029693 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2LNUAwU029692 for cse584-sp07-list@listserv.buffalo.edu; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:10 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200703212330.l2LNUAwU029692@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:30:10 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: "Philosophy of Computer Science, Spring 2007" From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: implementation and engineering To: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7 (2006-10-05) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/2893/Wed Mar 21 15:48:02 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 1487 Bill Duncan wrote: | > | Our current discussion on the concept of implementation seems to reflect | > | the engineering side of CS. I asked: | > why do you think our discussion is reflecting an engineering aspect? Bill replies: | Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:41:49 -0400 | From: Bill Duncan | Subject: Re: implementation and engineering | | Because engineers are concerned [about] how to implement some kind of | process (mechanical, chemical, electrical, etc...). They create a | design (typically), and then implement the design. I'm not saying this | all engineers do. It just seems that it is an important part of what | they do. I agree that engineers certainly seem to be concerned with implementation. But I think implementation is a more general notion. Perhaps this is one (but only one) reason why many programmers are called software *engineers*. | The term "implement/implementation" also seems to have an action quality | to it. That is, when something is implemented it normally involves an | agent doing some kind of construction. This construction connotation is | what made me think of engineering. I agree with this, too, although my theory of implementation is neutral on this point: I think that the Grand Canyon is an implementation of a map of the Grand Canyon; presumably, it wasn't built/created/implemented *from* that map. (Of course, you might well reply "so much the worse for Rapaport's theory of implementation :-) From ag33@cse.Buffalo.EDU Wed Mar 21 21:03:53 2007 Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (root@hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2M13rVs002421 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:03:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (ag33@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l2M13qGg026869; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ag33@localhost) by hadar.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l2M13q1Y026868; Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:03:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:03:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Albert Goldfain To: "William J. Rapaport" cc: CSE584-SP07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Subject: Re: implementation and engineering In-Reply-To: <200703212330.l2LNUAwU029692@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Message-ID: References: <200703212330.l2LNUAwU029692@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: NotJunk JunkRecorded $NotJunk X-UID: 14565 Content-Length: 1025 > I agree with this, too, although my theory of implementation is neutral > on this point: I think that the Grand Canyon is an implementation of a > map of the Grand Canyon; presumably, it wasn't built/created/implemented > *from* that map. (Of course, you might well reply "so much the worse > for Rapaport's theory of implementation :-) I think there are a cluster of terms that may refer to kinds of implementation (in Dr. Rapaport's wide sense): e.g., exemplification, realization, and instantiation. Do philosophers treat the implementation relation as one that admits kinds? Like Bill (Duncan), when I heard the term realization in class today (bringing something into reality), I thought of what engineers do... and of hardware rather than software. Consider: My file Mergesort.java is a realization of the mergesort algorithm. *sounds wrong to me My Dell laptop is a realization of the von Neumman architecture *sounds fine to me but that is just a linguistic analysis, and I am only one subject :-) Albert