From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bdc41aa5ff8e1d93
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: whiting_ms@corning.com (whiting_ms@corning.com (Matt Whiting))
Subject: Re: Programmers -> Engineers; Engineers -> Programmers
Date: 1996/08/09
Message-ID: <1996Aug9.114928.1@corning.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 173187741
references: <1996Aug8.115630.4568@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
 <Dvu0Jr.Esx.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: Corning, Incorporated
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
nntp-posting-user: whiting_ms
Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Dvu0Jr.Esx.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, ryer@harp.camb.inmet.com (Mike Ryer) writes:
> There are many first-rate programmers who have a general scientific education
> and the interest and quickness to learn a lot about radar -- just don't let
> them design your antennas.  There are many first-rate electronic engineers
> who have the patience and flexibility to learn programming -- just don't let
> them code your flight control system.
> 
> An electrical engineer can learn on his/her own how to program, but it takes
> working in a team within an established software engineering culture to really
> learn about maintainability, robustness, configuration management, defensive
> programming, realtime constraints, etc.  (A succession of hard knocks will
> also work, though this is tough on the first few projects).
> 
> A good programmer or software engineer should be able to find ambiguities and 
> contradictions in the requirements document written by a radar designer, think
> of boundary conditions and unusual scenarios, design for efficiency on 
> processing the kinds on input that actually occur in practice, etc.  In 
> other words, if they're good, they will have insight into the physics, 
> electronics, and mechanics of the system.
> 
> A successful project wants software engineers who understand the underlying
> science, and radar designers who understand software.  At least a few of each.
> Maybe you'll find a superman who does quantum mechanics in his head *and*
> writes code that's easy for other people to understand.  (I haven't).
> 
> To the extent that you don't have the excellent electronic and software
> engineers who learn enough about each other's fields, you need communicators,
> reviewers, requirements testers as well as code testers (note Arianne 5
> story), and a lot of extra time.
> 
> So the summary is:  
>   Q: Is it better to take engineers/scientists who understand the system
>      and teach them how to program?  Or is it better to take programmers
>      and teach them about the radar system?
>   A: No.
> 
-- 

And I planned to answer, YES.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew S. Whiting, P.E.   | PP-ASEL-IA | All opinions expressed herein are
Corning Incorporated       | C-182K/A   | strictly personal.
whiting_ms@corning.com     |            |