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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public From: kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/05/21 Message-ID: <5lvnt9$g0e@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 242955228 References: <5lsjb3$bqc@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: Prism Systems Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: >The point is: software artifacts (applications, components, whatever) >have to live in the real world just like hardware artifacts (engines, >wings, ICs, whatever). And there is as much of difference in _kind_ >between ideals in software construction as ideals in real engineering. >And this major fact is what seems to be lost on most software people. What are the ideals in software construction? I don't see it. I understand what an ideal fluid or gas may be, or what an idealized structural member is like and so forth. What is the idealized stuff in software? Reams of textbook pseudo-code? >> From this it does not follow that we should absorb computer science >> into engineering. Phooey! > >This is rather telling. Why is there such an emotional reaction to >this??? Because in my personal experience, engineering courses were ``sleepers'' the passage of which was based primarily on examsmanship whereas computer science courses were mostly stimulating and exciting (okay, there were some sleepers too, naturally; but even the sleepers had half decent assignments and projects). Which is no more or less valid than any other claims based on background experience that I have seen in this thread. We've seen, for instance, complaints from those who went after the prestige of ivy league computer science for whatever reasons, and then realized that they didn't learn software engineering. To that I say: what did you expect? Vocational training at an institution for privileged children? Of what practical use are software engineering skills to someone who can afford to go these schools? I sure as heck couldn't have coughed up $25K+ per year to go to school, I had to work to get by. When I graduated, I didn't go on a world tour; I found a programming job within two or three weeks. I'd like to say that _at the university where I completed my studies_, the recommendations you are making would probably not be a good idea, even though there is a great deal of synergy between engineering and CS, particularly EE. Every school is unique. Some CS departments could use a swift kick in the pants, others perhaps not.