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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=APOSTROPHE_FROM,BAYES_20,
	INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!SEI.CMU.EDU!Richard.S.D'Ippolito
From: Richard.S.D'Ippolito@SEI.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8902161705.AA16583@ae.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 16 Feb 89 17:05:47 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

To: info-ada-request@AJPO SEI CMU EDU
cc:
Subject: Software Fantasyland
--------

In Volume 89 #50, Marc Balcer asks:

	1.  How much re-educating of DoD software enginners is necessary
	    BEFORE teaching Ada?  In other words, should we be teaching
	    software engineering fundamentals first?  What's the most
	    effective way to do this?


The first thing that should be taught is engineering fundamentals.  The
folks you call generic software engineers are not really engineers in the
traditional sense, and assuming the title does not make them so.

Without the principles of engineering, there is no engineering.  Knowing a
language is not enough -- being able to name all of the nuts, bolts, cables,
and beams and having a good knowledge of how to assemble them still does not
make us qualified bridge designers.

We have to see Ada as just the raw material with which to implement a
solution.  Having great facility to manipulate and fashion the material only
makes us good bridge builders.  Until the functions of engineering design
and implementation are properly separated, we will always be in the same
mess -- expecting better designs from better materials and tools.

Richard S. D'Ippolito
rsd@sei.cmu.edu