Xref: utzoo comp.sw.components:361 comp.software-eng:2207
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!delta.eecs.nwu.edu!travis
From: travis@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Travis Marlatte)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Maintenance
Summary: Maintenance != Training; Licensing != Quality
Message-ID: <1337@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 19 Oct 89 01:32:07 GMT
References: <1271@accuvax.nwu.edu> <1989Oct18.170532.1586@mrspoc.Transact.COM>
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: travis@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (Travis Marlatte)
Organization: Northwestern U, Evanston IL, USA
Lines: 45

The discussion was kind of heading in the direction of using maintenance
as a training vehicle for new engineers. I think most of us agree that
this is wrong. Exposure only to maintenance is probably not the
way to bring a new programmer up to speed for design.

Whoops. There I said it again. The goal is create good designers. Somehow,
to be a good programmer, I believe one has to become a good designer. Even
in maintenance, and we all know I think that job is scum, good design
techniques are paramount to making sound revisions - whether defect fixes
or enhancements.

Contrary to my sarchastic comment above, I love maintenance. I have always
been one to enjoy tearing something apart, figuring out how it works, and
how to make it work better. I would think that most engineers have this
same attitude.

I do think that maintenance as a training vehicle is a waste of time. The
trainee learns nothing except how stupid past developers were. The company
may benefit from freeing up its more highly prized programmers but there
certainly is a cost of poorly done maintenance.

Actually, maintenance is an important part of new design as well. I can't
count how much time I've saved by striping a piece of code from a past
product and using it in a new design. Gosh - reusable software.

To reiterate my position - apprenticeships or something similar seem
like a pretty clean way of approaching training. Note that this does
address the new employee whether novice or experienced. Some formal program
to help the experienced programmer fit in with the company is just as
appropriate as a formal program to bring the novice up to speed.

A few comments on licensing: (are you out there Ms. Richards?) Licensing
does not prove competence or ability. It merely transfers liability. And
that usually doesn't work either. Licensing should mean nothing to a fellow
programmer (or engineer). It is only a stamp of approval from a publicly
recognized body and it is for the benefit of the public.

Licensing can only be used as a first defense against blithering idiots
passing themselves off as professional programmers. I am quite confident
that the programmers responsible for recent widely publicized software
failures were nothing but professionals and would have gained a license
if such were required.

Travis