< Prev Next >
6
NATO SOFTWARE ENGINEERING CONFERENCE 1968

PREFACE
In working out the present report on the Conference on Software Engineering organised by the NATO Science Committee, every attempt was made to make it useful to a wide circle of readers. Thus parts of it are written for those who have no special interest in computers and their software as such, but who are concerned with the impact of these tools on other parts of society. This class includes, for example:
• civil servants
• politicians
• policy makers of public and private enterprises.
These readers should find material of interest in Section 1 (Background of Conference) and Section 2 (Software Engineering and Society).
A somewhat narrower readership for the report includes those who need an understanding of the nature of software engineering, although they are not themselves working in the field. These readers are typically:
• managers of business enterprises using computers
• researchers in fields other than software engineering and computer science
• university officials
• computer marketing personnel.
These readers should find points of interest in Section 3 (Software Engineering), Section 7.1 (Software: the State of the Art), Section 7.2 (Education), and Section 7.3 (Software Pricing) as well as in Sections 1 and 2.
Finally, a large part of the report addresses itself to those directly engaged in the design, production (implementation), and service of software. These technical areas are first given an approximately  uniform coverage in Sections 4 (Design), 5 (Production), and 6 (Service). The succeeding chapters 7 (Special Topics), 8 (Invited Addresses) and 9 (Working Papers), present more detailed treatment of a selected set of topics.
The main problem in deciding on a structure for the report was to decide between one of two different basic classifications, the one following from the normal sequence of steps in the development of a software product, from project start, through design, production or development, to distribution and maintenance, the other related to aspects like communication, documentation, management, programming techniques, data structures, hardware considerations, and the like. The final structure is based on the first of these two classifications. However, in many places an unavoidable influence from the second type of classification has crept in. The editors are only too aware of this problem and have attempted to mitigate its effects by provision of a detailed index.
The text of the report derives mainly from two sources, viz. the working papers contributed by the participants before or during the conference (mostly in June 1968), and the discussions during the conference. The discussions were recorded by several reporters and most were also recorded on magnetic tape. The reporters’ notes were then collated, correlated with footage numbers on the magnetic tape, and typed. Owing to the high quality of the reporters’ notes it was then, in general, possible to avoid extensive amounts of tape transcription, except where the accuracy of quotations required verification. However, to give an impression of the editors’ task, here is an example, albeit extreme, of the typed notes:
536 DIJKSTRA
F -
H --
P --?--
(here ‘536’ is the tape footage number, and the letters F,H and P identify the reporters). This section of tape was transcribed to reveal that what was actually said was: 