Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ptsfa!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!usfvax2!pdn!reggie
From: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Computer Science: where it belongs
Message-ID: <1759@pdn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Nov-87 09:35:58 EST
Article-I.D.: pdn.1759
Posted: Thu Nov 12 09:35:58 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Nov-87 08:06:32 EST
References: <469@ndsuvax.UUCP> <16118@clyde.ATT.COM> <180@spock.UUCP> <4422@pyr.gatech.EDU> <3355@ames.arpa> <21402@cca.CCA.COM>
Reply-To: reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach)
Organization: Paradyne Corporation,   Largo FL
Lines: 41

In article <21402@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>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.

      Quite true!  Most CS graduates don't get such exposure until they obtain
a job in industry.  Perhaps what is needed is some kind of case study approach
like many business schools will take.  I can easily envision this taking an
entire course.

>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.  

       I don't know about that!  Have you ever seen some of the stuff that
architecture students turn in as designs :-)  BTW:  I may be wrong on this
point, but I don't believe that architects design bridges.  There just are
not many architectural issues involved.  Most designs are dictated by the
structural requirements.

>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?

       One of the worst aspects of comparing software to anything else, like
building bridges or cars is that each and every bridge that has ever been
build will serve the same function.  The same is true of cars, televisions,
etc.....  Not true of software!!!  Nor will the set of possible applications
that software will serve remain static.  We are constantly throwing new 
problem domains at software.  Sure, for someone writing Yet Another Payroll
Program ( although they would probably buy it!) this approach may be quite
useful, but for many other problem domains there is litte benefit.


-- 
George W. Leach					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!reggie	Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-2826