Talk:Software/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

First/definition sentence

WRT the current first line: Software is a collection of programs and data that tell a computer how to perform specific tasks. Software often includes associated software documentation. This is in contrast to hardware, from which the system is built and which actually performs the work.

Why say collection? A single program is software. Software does cover all programs so maybe that's why they use 'collection'. But, it's the collection of all programs. But that's awkward phrasing.

Why 'specific' task? Software tells how to do any task; even general ones.

Ordering of sentences causes the hardware part to seem to be in contrast to documentation when it should contrast software.

How about: Software is data, in particular machine instructions, that can control a computer via its machine instruction interface. Generally, software also encompasses related artifacts such as any source code used to drive execution and any documentation written as part of the development process.

Maybe this is more accessible (not just longer/wordier): Software is information that controls computer hardware via its machine instruction interface. Often is a computer program or a script. A native executable drives the hardware directly via machine instructions. The executable is software, but generally the source code used to generate the executable is also considered software. Software also generally encompasses interpreted source code that itself is not converted to machine code, but drives an interpreter that is machine code.Stevebroshar (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Stevebroshar my edit request above actually addresses your concern. You can implement it if you want. Buidhe paid (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I did see that notice/topic on this talk page the other day, but couldn't figure out how to see your draft ... until rn.

I do not like to be critical, but rather than beat around the bush I'll say that I think your draft is less than good. TBO it's less than good throughout, but I'll only critique the start.

The start: Software "is the set of programs, concepts, tools, and methods used to produce a running system on computing devices" is off the mark IMO. It's quoted and cited so that is valid for WP, but I do not think it's a good definition. Software is not a set of programs even though a program is software. Software encompasses concepts, but doesn't everything encompass concepts? Tools are used to build software, but tools are used to build anything. Methods applies to almost anything too. So, I can summarize: Software is something used to produce a running system on a computing device. But, system and computing device can be replaced with more precise terms computer program and computer, and I assume you mean runnable. So: Software is something used to produce a runnable computer program. That's describing software development tools and/or processes; not the core concept of software.

I do think that defining software is hard. I think that everyone knows what software is, but would struggle to say what it means in a concise and accurate way.

Maybe there is good content in your draft. There are so many changes from the current version that it's hard to review all the changes, but I will say that the current version is not great and would benefit from enhancement. I would like to encourage your input and feel bad that my feedback may be discouraging. Maybe a good way to move forward is to consider smaller and more focused changes. What are the issues you have with the current content? What changes would have the biggest impact? Can we start there?

I'm curious: what is your conflict of interest? Why do you not make these changes yourself? Are you wanting a review and that there is no conflict of interest? More context of your motivation would be considerate. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Stevebroshar I am being paid for these edits; that is the extent of my COI. My employer is not even requesting specific content changes, they are just paying me to improve the article. Because I'm being paid to edit, it's considered best practices to request edits instead of making the changes myself.

In terms of the definition of software, I did some digging and found that sources don't agree:

no need to read it

Nontechnical "for purposes of this paper, software is defined to be computer programs"[1] "Software is defined a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to achieve a specified objective."[2] "Software is defined as the instructions that a computer follows to perform a specified task."[3] "Software has never been unequivocally defined by any disciplinary field (including technical ones) and that it takes different forms in different contexts..." (xix) but a "widely accepted definition of software as the totality of all computer programs as well as all the written texts related to computer programs" (xx).[4] "software is the set of instructions that make the machine operate in specific ways."[5] (naive definition followed by a lot of philosophizing) Technical "when asked to ponder what “software” is, computer software engineers seem to assume that the only kind of software is computer software. They provide answers that roughly equate software with code to be executed on a computer. When prodded, most will readily agree that the software they produce consists of more than just the code, but also somehow incorporates specifications of various kinds, designs, and perhaps testing regimes and results as well."[6] (although the author goes on to say it should be defined more broadly than computer software, and might include recipes and legislation) "In this volume," software" is defined broadly as a generic for all the stages of tailoring a computer system to solve a problem."[7]

I tend to agree with you when it comes to the actual definition of software, but what is harder is finding a source that defines it that way. One step could be acknowledging the disputed nature of the definition (some of the above sources could be cited for this).

The reason I rewrote the entire article is because there are no sections of it that are well sourced and do a good job covering the content IMO. You are welcome to partially implement the edit if you want; one place to start might be the "Impact" or "Workforce" section, which have no parallel in the current article. Buidhe paid (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe paid: so, your last name is not "paid" :) and that's why it's not capitalized ... who considers it best practice to request edits when your paid? but it's fine, I'm happy to work collaboratively. ... in general a definition of a non-trivial concept is often misleading and a bit wrong since it cannot encompass the totality of the concept, but IMO all concepts benefit from being defined. The trick is it come up with a definition that is close and not clearly wrong so that later text that clarify edge cases. Everyone who defines a concept will do so differently. So, there are a zillion definitions of 'software'. Using one particular source is actually a disservices to the WP reader. Could list every sourcable definition and then every article would start with "XXX has the following meanings: ..." Doesn't read well. WP seems to be about synthesizing text based on source material, and that includes re-stating rather than quoting. ... But, where is the line between re-stating and OR? IDK. But I will boldly say that it's better to be right than to be misleading or to present a narrow view. Writing WP requires thinking and creativity to synthesize source material into a readable article, but at the end of the day, a WP article, as any written work, involves authors opinions. ... so, I wonder what my point is ;) ... I think the WP community is responsible to define software. The definition should be supported by sources but need not be a quote. I think that software may be particularly hard to define and as with some articles it may be worthwhile to include a section on particular definitions that demonstrate the array of opinions in the world. But, I think the first sentence should be a synthesized definition; not a quote. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe paid: On your broader edits: I agree that the existing article could be improved and I will look at your Impact and Workforce sections Stevebroshar (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

False depiction of law

The sentence "Software patents, like other types of patents, are theoretically supposed to give an inventor an exclusive, time-limited license for a detailed idea (e.g. an algorithm) on how to implement a piece of software," is false.

Patent protection is never awarded to "ideas" but "inventions". The sentence is legally misleading. Rebentisch (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my version of the article fixes this Buidhe paid (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)