Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!eosp1!robison From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: defining "software" Message-ID: <1123@eosp1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Sep-84 00:34:10 EDT Article-I.D.: eosp1.1123 Posted: Mon Sep 17 00:34:10 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 04:03:09 EDT Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton, NJ Lines: 32 References: Henry Polard's definition: >> Software: a program with the data that is included in order for it >> to operate. I don't think that this definition accomplishes enough. First, one of the serious problems in defining software lies in distinguishing it from data. It is the failure to distinguish software and data that, in my view, leads to such vagueness as calling a record or a Compact Disk, "software". Second, I think a program is software even if it its data is not included. I have seen enormous programs that lack any data whatsoever; they look like software to me. Third, it's really important to define the word program. Walter mondale's program for dealing with the National Debt probably is not software. My memo on this subject may have tried to deal with "program" the hard way; an easier way is to work with the word "algorithm", which is well-defined. One might ask what kinds of instances of algorithms are classified as software. As a counter example, if an algorithm is carried out by a simple mechanical thing, I would not call the thing software. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison