Talk:Software engine/Archive 1

Archive 1

I think the definition of a software engine should be: a computer program that outputs source code or markup code that becomes the input to another computer process. The analogy is that of one process driving another process, with the computer code being burned as fuel. An example of a software engine would be the Wikipedia engine, as it outputs HTML to your browser. A software engine differs from other software processes in that other software processes output data, not computer code. Timhowardriley 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The present article (almost identical to the above comment) is far from capturing what people mean when they say "software engine". A better definition would include the range of examples listed under Engine (disambiguation). Whiner01 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Whiner01. Software engine is not defined as something creating/processing code. It may produce code, but that is not what defines an engine. I like the definition of game engine, containing the words "core software component".147.175.98.110 (talk) 12:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

But software engine is a new term, and multi-layered applications have had a core component for decades without a special term associated with the core. Timhowardriley (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been gravitation for billions of years, but the word gravitation is a relatively new term. Does it mean, we should not use it for the "old" gravitation?

The definition in this article is wrong. Producing code is not the substantial property of a software engine.

There are 2 opinions against 1 in this discussion, that the definition is incorrect. And we can count 3 against 1, as the original author of this article had a different opinion too. I will return the deleted tag.147.175.98.110 (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, your definition violates WP:NOR and your statement 'software engine is a new term' points to the violation of WP:NEO.147.175.98.110 (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Agree: violation of WP:NEO. But the violation has been in the articles that use this term, not this stub that attempts to define it.
2. Agree: violation of WP:NOR. So is every other non-referenced assertion. I suggest those with a verifiable alternative to WP:Be bold and contribute to the article, instead of adding disruptive tags.
3. Disagree: gravitation analogy. It doesn't matter that the universe has had gravitation for billions of years. Newton coined the term gravitation when he discovered it. Ben Franklin coined the term battery when he invented one. Vocabulary is created when something new has been invented or discovered and, therefore, needs to be subsequently identified. If there was a time period when the term wasn't used, then the discovery or invention hadn't yet taken place. Since multi-layered applications have had a core program for decades, and since no one found the need to coin a term for the core program (other than maybe "core program"), and since software engine is a neologism, then software engine cannot be simply the core program in multi-layered applications. It means something more specific, something newer -- a code generator that runs other applications.
4. Disagree: consensus. I suggest you get a user account to eliminate the possibility of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. See [1] as of 2/19/08.
5. Disagree: producing code is not the substantial property of a software engine. Yes it is.

Please post your replies below. This was submitted by Timhowardriley (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

I will use numbers to refer to your points. (i.e. 1 to 5, one for each agree/disagree) I don't want to change your edit. If you think it is OK, please, insert the numbers into your comment to identify the points easier.

1. I just try to say, that WP:NEO may be violated, not that it actually is violated. We should be careful in defining new terms, especially if they are not stabilized yet. Maybe Wictionary would be a better place to discuss neologisms.

2. Be bold, but don't be reckless. You changed the original definition ([2]) in this article without discussion or verifiable facts. You could at least provide the source of this information.

3. What I tried to say is, that old things may get new names. When Nikola Tesla invented the Tesla coil, he didn't call it 'Tesla coil'. The name was used decades later by his followers. Similarly, core programs (and code generators too) were written since the invention of computers, but then later, a new term was invented. 'Software engine' is a new term, but that does not imply, that it describes a new invention.

4. Ad hominem argument. Do you see any reason for sock puppetry in this case? I didn't use any aggressive, offensive or misleading statements, so there is no reason to hide my identity. Anyway, I don't see a point in getting a nick. The only effect would be hiding my IP, i.e. hiding my background.

5. Just few examples of the use of 'software engine' for something, that does not produce source code (a random google search): [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

147.175.98.110 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of dispute tag

I agree with the current definition that a software engine is a code generator that runs other applications. Two dispute tags have been inserted into the article because editors think a software engine is a more general term, referring simply to the core program in a multi-layered application. (This is my interpretation; please correct me if I'm wrong.) Because the term software engine is a neologism, it cannot be sourced. However, the term is already used in articles and needs a consensus for a definition. After a good discussion of what a software engine is, I hope that the article can have the two dispute tags removed. Timhowardriley (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is normal, that you agree with your own definition (no offense). I agree, that it should be discussed-out. I added the 'disputed' tag instead of changing the article, because I want consensus and no edit war. I think, that the tag should remain until it is settled-down. The reason is to warn anyone who reads the article, that there may be some problems with the definition. He/she can look at this discussion and create his/her own opinion. I have seen too many people (especially students), who take the informations in Wikipedia as the absolute truth.147.175.98.110 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict

The blurb up top suggests that Engine means core, plain and simple. The section below suggests (in a round about way) that it's an abstract word that can't be clearly defined in computational terms. Also, "it's not a rule, just a tendency" is a strange thing to say. Original research? Come to think of it, I'm not sure "core" can be defined in terms of computer science either.83.251.83.131 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary Definition

Not sure the term software engine is a neologism, as Merriam Webster Unabridged has definition 7 that reads, " : computer software that performs one or more fundamental functions especially of a larger program <a database engine> " Pgrisier (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This term is not unique

AFAIK, "Software engine" is not different from any Software or Computer program or Software system Ushkin N (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose on the grounds that the page contents give a sufficiently different set of definitions for each of these concepts that they are best kept separate. Klbrain (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)