Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cca!g-rh
From: g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Computer Science: where it belongs
Message-ID: <21402@cca.CCA.COM>
Date: Tue, 10-Nov-87 14:59:11 EST
Article-I.D.: cca.21402
Posted: Tue Nov 10 14:59:11 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Nov-87 23:02:18 EST
References: <469@ndsuvax.UUCP> <16118@clyde.ATT.COM> <180@spock.UUCP> <4422@pyr.gatech.EDU> <3355@ames.arpa>
Reply-To: g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 22
Summary: In the gutter, where else? :-)

Here is thought for what it's worth.  I have always felt that one of the
failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying
large existing programs.  There are two points here.

One is having a bank of pre-existing program plans to draw on.  Doesn't this
make sense?  Architects don't sit down and design bridges and buildings as
though no one had ever built a bridge or a building before.  Suppose you have
to design a system.  Wouldn't it be sensible if, for each requirement, you
could go to the design catalog and get a list of system features that would
be needed.  Wouldn't it be sensible if you had a suite of major architectures
to select from instead of designing one de novo?

The other point is that SE people should spend some time studying large
programs.  What is the principal decomposition?  It's all very well to be
able to write small programs that implement neat algorithms, but a lot of
people are going to have to work with large systems.  Shouldn't an SE graduate
have some experience in finding her way around a large system?
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.