Xref: utzoo comp.object:3147 comp.software-eng:5337 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!igor!rutabaga!jls From: jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems Message-ID: Date: 13 Apr 91 03:52:45 GMT References: <3201:Apr705:40:4591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1899:Apr1206:12:4991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: news@Rational.COM Followup-To: comp.object Lines: 52 >Every working definition of ``engineering'' appears to exclude computer >science. Is this something to be PROUD of? As it stands, it is certainly an accurate reflection of the current state of affairs, but hardly a good thing. >What would you put on a test for software engineers? What do they put on tests for other engineers? >The existing tests for engineers include some amount of jargon, to be >sure, but they also include *problems* that relate directly to problems >in the *real world*---problems whose solutions are applied directly by >engineers every day. Most of the answers aren't obvious, even to someone >acquainted with the jargon. I'm a bit confused. Is it your belief that software engineers do NOT work on problems directly related to the real world? I thought that satellites, dishwashers, dialysis machines, airplanes, telecommunications equipment, laptop computers, relational databases, finite element analysis models, and, well, actually, every OTHER thing I've seen software used for was part of the real world. Or did you mean to say something other than what you appear to be saying? >Would you make sure they knew the latest terminology? Or would you aim >for the blindingly obvious? ``True or false: If you need code ten times, >it is cheaper for the code to be (a) rewritten each time; (b) stored in >a library.'' I think I'd ask them to solve some problems. Probably have them rig up an interface to some device, write some queries for a database, reverse engineer a design from some legacy code, etc etc etc. You know--do some software engineering. Think of it as the kind of thing lawyers have to do to pass the bar, or doctors have to do to become doctors. >Or would you use material from what appears to be the vast majority of >software engineering literature---theories that are neither applied by >working programmers, nor proven to help solve *real world* problems. Could you please list some software engineering theories that are not applied by programmers and/or do not help to solve real world problems? For extra credit, could you give me an example of a real world problem? I think we have some sort of communications problem. -- * The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in the realm of software * * engineering, in which case I borrowed them from incredibly smart people. * * * * Rational: cutting-edge software engineering technology and services. *