Re: Any research putting c above ada?

[Roy Grimm <ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com>]

Kevin Cline wrote:
> Roy Grimm <ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com> wrote:
> 
> You didn't read my post carefully enough, and evidently "grade-grubber" isn't
> well understood either.  I just said that a low GPA makes it harder to get an
> interview.  I then indicated that it played little or no part in my
> evaluation of a candidate.  A grade grubber is a student interested in
> expending the minimum possible effort to obtain a desired grade, with no
> interest in mastering the subject.

Fair enough.  I'd agree in principle with what you are getting at in
reference to "grade-grubbers".  There are slackers out there just
interested in doing enough to get by.  However, too many people
automatically associate that attitude with bad grades.  I've never
gotten really good grades in any of the classwork I've done and yet I've
probably gotten more out of the classes than the average person. 
Fortunately, I've been in the business long enough to prove I'm no
slacker.

> >At a homecoming a few years later, I found out that a few people in my
> >class who had graduated with a 4.0 in comp sci were having trouble in
> >their jobs maintaining COBOL code for accounting/insurance type
> >companies becasue they didn't know how to apply their theory to real
> >world situations.
> 
> The probably didn't understand the theory either, but were able to memorize
> enough bullet points to pass the exams.  This reflects poorly on your
> instution.

Actually, they were brilliant with theory.  The one individual I'm
thinking of was able to take the CompSci GRE and score in the upper 75%,
but couldn't figure out how to format a report of an amortization table
without help.  The point I'm trying to make is that all theory and no
practice is detrimental to the average student and tends to skew the
grading curve all over the place.  Someone who has trouble with
something as simple as formatting output should not graduate with a 4.0
GPA.

> >But you can teach the fundamentals in a few weeks, rather than in the
> >two semesters they currently waste.
> 
> I disagree strongly.  Obviously we disagree on how much knowledge is
> relevant.

Either that or we have had remarkably different experiences learning our
theory and mine was very much sub-par.  Everyone in my classes
complained about the slow pace.  We spent several days studying why
Quicksort works as fast as it does.  This after spending a few weeks on
binary trees and how to search, sort and balance them.

It seems to me that we could spend about a day on the theory of binary
trees, spend the next day on the sorting and balancing algorithms and
move on to one day looking at the various sorting algorithms.  College
students are not stupid.  They do not need to rehash the basics like
they were learining arithmetic in grade school.

If I were designing a CompSci program at a college, I would make the
intro classes available to those who need the "remedial" help.  Most
students who enter college with the intention of studying computer
science have already had some exposure to it, much like most math
students have already had pre-calc.  There is no reason freshmen
couldn't start studying algorithm design first semester.  (unless, of
course, they hadn't had the exposure, but that's what the "remedial"
courses are for.)  Once the basics of algorithm and data structure were
taught in the fall, the spring would be dedicated to teaching basic
programming methods.  These would include using debuggers, performing
peer reviews, constructing functional tests of the software, etc.  After
that, students would be ready to tackle higher level stuff.  (And pardon
my arrogant opinion, but if they can't handle basic algorithm design and
programming methods, they have no business trying to be programmers.)

> >If students spent more time learning how to solve real problems, they would
> >be able to pick up the theory much faster.
> 
> I don't believe this at all.  I have known many experienced developers who
> wrote ridiculously inefficient software because of a complete lack of
> knowledge of operating system services, the language they were using, and
> fundamental data structures.

How have they lasted in their positions to get any experience if they
don't know fundamental data structures?  And did you at least try to
teach them what they needed to know?

> >They would see a problem and ask the intelligent
> >questions about how to solve it.  At that point, you can show them the
> >theory and how it applies in that case.
> 
> "Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn at no other."
> 
> I think this would be painfully slow.

My own personal experience demonstrates the opposite of your opinion.

> >How would software engineering be any different than any other
> >discipline?  Do they not teach engineering judgement to the other
> >engineering disciplines?
> 
> Engineering judgement involves combining off-the-shelf and custom-built
> components to solve a particular problem in a cost-effective manner. The
> number of available software components is enormous, and changing rapidly,
> perhaps more rapidly than any other field of endeavor.  Understanding the
> usefulness of the various tools applicable to any particular development shop
> takes at least a year of full-time work.  Without that experience, it's very
> hard to maek correct build/buy decisions.  It's also hard to predict the
> likely requirements changes to determine where to spend extra resources for
> maximum flexibility.

Engineering judgement is the ability to solve problems.  Teach someone
how to solve problems in general, then show them the specifics of the
field and they can apply their fundamental problem solving ability to
that field.  Electrical engineers can combine thousands if not millions
of different components into electrical systems governed by very complex
differential equations.  Why then is it that professors can teach them
how to do it effectively yet you claim the computer science students
couldn't learn how to combine software packages together?  Is there some
genetic defect with computer science students?

> >Sure.  If you are one of the 5% of students who are able to comprehend
> >technical manuals, that's good advice.  What about for the rest of them?
> 
> I feel that the ability to learn from written material is essential to
> staying on top of this profession.  Even if it is harder for you than some
> others, you must do it anyway.  Otherwise your skills will become more and
> more specialized, and you have little value to any company except your
> current employer.  There are thousands of 50-year-old engineers  RIF'd out
> of high-paying positions who ended up taking jobs for half their former
> salary. Don't let it happen to you.  Know where your paycheck comes from.
> Make sure you are contributing value equal to your cost.

I agree that people must keep learning or become obsolete.  No question
about it.  I agree that technical manuals are a good source of
information for professionals wanting to expand their skills. 
Personally, I devour manuals left and right.  I'm always learning
something new and most of my information comes from the technical
manuals.  However, I disagree that technical manuals serve a usefull
purpose for _most_ college students.  They simply do not have the
experience to make use of manuals.

-- 
Voicing my own opinion, not speaking as a company representative...

Roy A. Grimm
Rockwell Collins Avionics
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
ragrimm@cca.rockwell.com