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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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!VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV!larry
From: larry@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Teaching SW Egr
Message-ID: <890303182426.950@VLSI.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 4 Mar 89 02:24:26 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I've talked to many programmers who started out as hardware
engineers or who work with software systems that are heavily
hardware-oriented.  I tell them that Ada is a programming language
that includes capabilities that hardware engineers have long had,
such as standard, parameterized interfaces; modularity; and
automated checking.  Put this way, generics, packages, and strong
type-checking makes perfect sense to most of them.

For that matter, I sometimes wonder what is so difficult about the
more basic ideas behind software engineering.  Isn't it obvious
that hard problems have to be treated in a "divide and conquer"
fashion?  That even the most brilliant solutions have costs as well
as benefits?  That every boring, fiddling detail that a computer
can handle leaves humans to do the fun things?

Do we really need an entire course in software or any other kind
of engineering?
                           Larry @ vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov