Talk:List of software engineering topics

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Software.

Engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

This page is mostly lists of lists, which differs significantly from the narrative text of Software engineering.

Why "basic"? I see the page List of software engineering topics is empty - why not put this page there? Basic here appears to have no meaning, and makes it harder to find the page. GRAHAMUK 06:23, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. Jay 05:11, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Donald Bagert: First professional software engineer in U.S. in 1998."

While this may be true, it sounds completely bizarre. Without the linked article actually being written and the relevant facts included, I'm not convinced this has a place here. I removed it once because of this, but it was reinserted with no more explanation put forward. A Google search comes up with some possible references, but is rather inconclusive. I'd suggest writing the associated article, and then if it truly deserves a place in this list, it can be reinserted as a link then. At present it is doing nothing to improve THIS article, which is what's being discussed here. GRAHAMUK 21:48, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In many ways, I would prefer not to recognize this as important, as I oppose the licensing model. However Texas and Canada have developed a "professional" software engineering model that resembles traditional engineering. The intent is to require all software engineers to earn state licenses. They are leading the effort to create an undergraduate curriculum for software engineering that will lead into getting licenses. This is supported by the IEEE and other organizations around the world, including Britian, Japan, Australia, and so on. For more information on the undergrad curriculum see http://sites.computer.org/ccse/ For more information on licensing in Texas see http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/nm/sofupdt.htm This will affect all new software engineers in a few years in Britian, US, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere, whether they like it or not.

This is Donald Bagert. I am indeed the first Professional Engineer licensed in the field of software engineering in the United States. This is because I am the first licensed as such in Texas, which is the first stated to license Professional Engineers in software engineering in the United States. My license date was September 4, 1998. The October 9, 1998 article concerning the ceremony on October 8 where I was publicly presented the license is available at http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~bagert/UDarticle10_9_98.htm. (The article is from the Texas Tech student newspaper, then called the University Daily and now called the Daily Toreador. The article is too far back for their public archives, but I'm sure that if you contact them - the webiste is at www.dailytoreador.com, they will verify the article.) Is that enough proof for you? :)

Knuth and Dijkstra were included in various ways, in previous drafts. The problem is that both are more CS than SE, so references were removed from SE by various editors. For example, the Art of Computer Programming was a standard SE reference manual for many years, even though it is truly a CS work.

The items on the list are non-encyclopedic and merely a sample of the field. The coverage is not synchronized to the article on software engineering. 169.207.115.129 00:22, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This was split out from the article on software engineering and needs much improvement. Please help.

Removed these because they appear to be product plugs.

Article says too much about "disasters" which are very rare.

Internet, Innovation and Open Source:Actors in the Network

I added Internet, Innovation and Open Source:Actors in the Network — First Monday to the list, probably a bit prematurely. I don't know how "notable" it is or if i put it in the correct place or not. I'm also placing it in the References section on the List of community topics because it deals with Virtual community and other socio-technical aspects of Internet sociology. • CQ 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed large chunks of the mostly inaccurate statements involving the Strasbourg A320 crash. this article discusses the crash in more detail. --Jpschaaf 17:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Security

There is nothing about Security/Data Protection/Privacy/Auditing on that page? (Only Consumer Protection). Thats a MAJOR GAP (in this otherwise gappy article).

Good point. So go ahead and add relevant entries. See further comment below. Trevor Hanson 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-encyclopedic as it stands

I have added a {{listcruft}} tag because, as observed above, this is a gappy article. It's really just a random list of pet topics.

To create a proper taxonomy of software engineering disciplines, somebody needs to do a comprehensive edit, backed up with some textbook citations. I submit that a good approach might be to transform this into a short list of major well-recognized sub-disciplines, each linking to its own sublist or major article. A list of software-related disasters, for example, has no place under this article title. Trevor Hanson 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]