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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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: rlk@rational.com (Bob Kitzberger)
Subject: Re: Programmers -> Engineers; Engineers -> Programmers
Date: 1996/08/09
Message-ID: <4ufort$5v1@rational.rational.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 173291751
references: <1996Aug8.115630.4568@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
organization: Rational Software Corporation
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


James Krell (jkrell@nswc.navy.mil) wrote:
: Let's say an organization is developing software for a radar system...
: 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?

Hopefully it isn't an either-or proposition.  You should do both,
to some degree.  For a large system, you also need system architects,
and software architects, not just programmers.  IMHO.


--
Bob Kitzberger	      Rational Software Corporation       rlk@rational.com
http://www.rational.com http://www.rational.com/pst/products/testmate.html