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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:3519 alt.cobol:117 comp.software-eng:3272
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,alt.cobol,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Programming vs. Software Engineering
Message-ID: <8462@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 22 Mar 90 17:02:04 GMT
References: <1990Mar21.232702.20713@comm.WANG.COM>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Distribution: usa
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From lws@comm.WANG.COM (Lyle Seaman):
 
  [Note: I have removed the inappropriate comp.lang.c newsgroup] 

> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>>   counterpart.  This is despite the fact that STANFINS-R had to take 
>>   raw COBOL programmers and train them to be Ada Software Engineers, 
> 
> In my experience, the terms programmer and software engineer conjure up
> two entirely different worlds of practice.  I can't imagine training 
> a programmer to be a software engineer (much less a Software Engineer)
> in anything like the amount of time spent of STANFINS-R.

    Then consider the following descriptions of the STANFINS-R experience:

     Claton J. Hornung, Senior Software Specialist and Project Manager, 
     Computer Sciences Corporation:

      It was determined that COBOL programmers who had never worked 
      with a structured programming language such as Ada... had 
      preconcieved notions about Ada and a strong religious devotion
      to the COBOL way of design and programming.... The training
      demonstrated that concepts discussed in terms of a COBOL
      programmer facilitated the mind set transition.  After this
      experience the programmers became more receptive to new ideas
      and appreciated the new found power of Ada and associated
      software engineering concepts.

      Many students demonstrated a lack of fundamental understanding
      in the basic concepts of data structures and basic design.  Not
      only did training have to focus on these concepts, but it became
      necessary to focus on software engineering principles and goals
      as well.   

     Kenneth Fussichen, Computer Scientist, Computer Sciences Corporation:

      The promise of Ada that attracts the MIS [practitioner] is the
      promise of maintainability.  Virtually every other major software
      engineering principle pales in its image.  Maintenance is such an
      expensive chore that if it can be practically overcome, Ada would
      be assimilated quickly by the MIS [world].  Preliminary findings 
      indicate that our Ada implementation may be significantly more 
      maintainable than its COBOL predecessors [i.e., previous versions
      of STANFINS which had been written in COBOL]....

      The aggregate level of learning for [STANFINS-R project members]
      is among the highest I've ever seen.  More [project members] 
      attend classes in the evening, write professional papers, belong 
      to professional organizations and book clubs than any other [project]
      I've seen.  The knowledge of Software Engineering principles is the
      highest of any [project in which] I've participated.  

   So I think it *is* possible, and STANFINS-R does support that contention.   


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu