Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!unify!dgh
From: dgh@unify.UUCP (David Harrington)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Maintenance^2
Message-ID: <1225@unify.UUCP>
Date: 10 Nov 89 00:56:42 GMT
References: <371@sierra.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: dgh@unify.UUCP (David Harrington)
Organization: Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA, USA
Lines: 27

In article <371@sierra.stanford.edu> bryan@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Doug L. Bryan) writes:
>
>
>(I could go on and on about why IMHO s/w eng doesn't exists, but
>this isn't the place for that thread.)

I, for one, would like to hear your HO about why s/w eng doesn't exist.  It is
extremely relevant to my work, managing the development group for a large,
complex product in the 60K source lines class.  When I hire new engineers, the
main thing I look for is exposure to methodology and experience with large,
complex systems.  In new grads, what I have to settle for (happily, in most
cases) is coursework exposure to methodology, which isn't too bad, and energy
and enthusiasm.  In experienced engineers, I generally have to settle for
relevant experience, but "seat of the pants" mentodology.  I'd like to have
the best of both.  (I realize that the deterioration of methodology skills is
something industry, not academia, needs to address.)

Anyway, since I've started this here, if it isn't the place for the thread,
where is it?

>
>Disclaimer: I work for a university.  I have tried to teach software
>engineering at this university.  I once gave an assignment like the
>one being discussed and the students hated it.  My course was
>canceled.

That's unbelievable.