Maybe the perception has less to do with the paper or Berkeley that than a possible bias against Software Engineering research. I’ve always perceived it, maybe

Maybe the perception has less to do with the paper or Berkeley that than a possible bias against Software Engineering research. I’ve always perceived it, maybe unfairly, as one of the least rigorous topics in Computer Science, and more removed from more foundational insights that can have eventually have more important, broader impact or increase fundamental understanding that enables advances in other areas. If any of the conjecture is true, it wouldn’t be a criticism of any researcher in this area or their capabilities. Maybe it’s just a matter of maturity. How rigorous can I expect theory to be when th top software companies in the word still have trouble estiming delivery and complexity of software implementations? We may just not know enough yet.