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