I know that in the long run, software would be much better off if we had software engineers doing it
I made no assertions of ignorance. I'm simply predicting that properly engineered software is going to be a continuously growing field as more corporations integrate more complicated software in more systems. I don't just mean workstation/gaming/server software, I'm thinking also of embedded applications such as blenders and all the mundane. Eventually software engineering is going to be so pervasive in the engineering fields that the quality demanded will be much higher.
If all companies wanted their software engineered, it would cost 10 times as much, and take 10 times as long to get done.
...and work at least 5 times as well. And integrate better into the next project. And require less maintainance. And so on.
I'll bet in 5-10 years software engineers are going to be the pimps of the playground. It's more abstract that most engineering fields, and the need for quality software is only going to continue to rise.
Engineer software? Why would we do that? Who needs math when you can just have some codemonkey hack it together? Because software never involves anything like graphs, and algorithm complexity never comes into play.
You have to be pretty dense to call any branch of math useless in such an computer/science focused board like slashdot, and I suspect you must be a pretty shitty math teacher if you don't have future engineers/physicists in mind. I suppose you could just be a troll as well. Either way, I wouldn't want your slacker ass teaching my kid.
If the only reason sexual content is censored is to prevent children from mimicing them and making poor sexual choices, then why can't women's breasts be seen on TV? Why do they automatically raise the rating of any game/movie? I'll tell you why: this culture obsessively sexually represses itself. Many other countries are much more open about sex, and many have less problems with STDs and teen pregnency than the US. This is not about role models, this is something much deeper.
I'm with Daniel. Winning money from google for oss dev only to pump the money into MS seems... well it conjures to my mind many adjectives worse than "traitor."
No offense at all. All the CS programs I have ever been near have been peanuts compared to the programs labeled with engineering (excluding civil; no one respects them).
I had never even heard of predicate calculus before this; as mention in previous posts the CS here is laughable relative to *E so I was taken by suprise. I'm even more suprised to see posts besides yours saying that CS is more difficult that CE. It is a simple fact that many people who can't hack CE go CS here.
As to preference, I find it much more enjoyable to program systems that interact with hardware than software. It was not always that way; but at the same time I never understood the methods through which software communicated with hardware. Once you learn the general principles, you are suddenly no longer bound to the PC. You can build a system of any scale and program it to do whatever you want. That was the appeal of CE for me; building little black boxes to automate stuff. I would highly suggest duel majoring as the CECS's I know don't regret the extra knowledge, and the CS's often regret not having a broader background. Just my pair of coppers.
...implied that physicists can solve problems from any other field without even cracking a book open.
I implied no such thing. A physical engineer should have no problems jumping between applications requiring mechanics (quantum or otherwise), electrodynamics, thermodynamics, optics, etc. without a difficult transition. You are going to have to read a shitload to get involved in any meaningful project. A physicist is just fairly well prepared to jump into nearly any engineering discipline.
There is no MIS major here, so I am not confusing anything. I interact with many CS's and it appears that your CS program does a lot more math than our program; it sounds like you are actually in a good one. As I have been prefixing many of my statements so far, my academic judgements are based on my experiences in each of these programs.
Just don't start thinking that you have a mathmatical edge on a physicist, unless you make a specific point to study math well beyond your requirements (modern quantum will fuck your world up).
I still think you need a hug or a lay or something.
I never suggested that one field had inheritly more value that another. I should have been a bit clearer and specified that I was talking about coursework, not actual engineering and research positions.
Secondly, at my institution CS is a joke. I realize this isn't a general case, but I have known for a long time that many employers look at the major as a joke too. CS will not make you a software engineer; it takes a certain mentality for that.
In fact, it takes a certain mentality for any technical job. A lot of cats jump into the CS boat expecting the degree work is fully adequate. That is bullshit. You have to be passionate about your field to succeed, computer software doubly so because it changes so rapidly. You can get a 4.0 in CS without developing any real-world applicable skills, and after several years much of what you had learned could be very outdated. It is either keep up or give up, and the latter is optimal unless you love it.
Another point is that, if true, said physicist (who is actually a female according to signature) would look at CE as "special-ed" also, because they have quite a bit in common.
Ok, I used to think this. Once upon a time I was a CS going into CE because I knew I could teach myself all the programming and administrating I wanted. I ran out of CS requirements my Junior year. CE requires more math than CS, and there is a heavy load of EE classes involved; the hardware side has to actually consider analog voltage. Compared to physics most of CE is actually "special ed." However, digital system design can get just as hairy as the design of a physical experiment, and a CE will probably be needed to handle the data signal processing anyway. A large-scale application is one of the most difficult things in the world to design; in many ways much more difficult than a digital hardware system. However, the average CE out of school and the average CS out of school will both be qualified to do the pure software work. The average CS will not be qualified to interface EEPROM to an embedded processor. In terms of coursework, a CS is bound fairly closely to software, whereas a CE it taught from the the power outlet to the screen. With the right electives, you can extend that from the nuke/coal/oil plant through the grid to the outlet.
"...they are suffering from low self esteem and an inferiority complex." "...is something I would expect from a highschool student." "..shatter your illusions of grandeur."
Were those (thinly) veiled digs at me? If so, I think you do need a hug. Want a hug? Come on, let's squeeze that anger right out of you.
"I am less interested in logic gates and multipliers than I am in higher level programming. Although we take lots of classes on those topics, anyway."
I was hoping you would say something like that, because you sound like a fucking moron. You think CE is logic gates and multipliers? Seriously, are you an idiot? Do you really think CE's spend their time screwing around with chips on the level of multipliers? Have you ever worked through a microcontroller timing diagram? Did they teach you how to scale analog voltage up and down to interface with A/D and D/A converters? Do you know how to solve difference equations? Do you even know the electrical components required for a standard CMOS inverter? Do you honestly believe CE is as easy as hooking a bunch of gates together and applying power?
From what I've seen, a physicist looks at CS like an EE/CE looks at a technician. Something along the lines of "You call that a complex problem?"
And from personal experience, upper level CS classes are like special ed compared to upper level physics.
To reply to the question in general the "do what you love" people are right. Just make sure you know what you love. I went into CE because I taught myself all sorts of software in highschool, and I thought it would be a good idea to generalize. It turned out that I love digital hardware design and interfacing, and that derailed my plans to become a software engineer.
Now I'm about to get my B.S. in CE, and am moving on to a master program in EE. After that, I am seriously considering a PhD in physics. Doing what you love is easy when you love it all; after my masters I'll be well prepared to work within a huge spectrum of engineering disciplines (my focus on physics greatly enhances that).
In short, play around. You may even find that you are more mechanically inclined. College is a good time to give yourself some basic generalization; specialization can wait IMHO.
I don't doubt software is easier to come across now. It's still not as plentiful as windows software though.
You wouldn't consider putting an OS on the network without a firewall, but you can't be bothered to look up audio-visual applications? Your stated use is even more general in that all you want to do is convert file formats.
The fact that windows isn't secure out of the box doesn't matter one bit to me. I don't care.
You seem to be missing my point. The only OS I know of that it is even reasonable to trust "out of the box" is OpenBSD, simply because it is designed with security in mind. Beyond that some updating and configuring is required for all operating systems to be secure. I said that Linux in the hands of the experienced will give you security superior to the other two platforms mentioned; otherwise it is likely to be less secure. That leaves Mac and Windows to the uninformed, and Mac keeps it cleaner.
As far as Windows being my fault, I say it's also your fault. Why don't you develop a Linux distro that is as easy as windows?
OMG!!!!!!11 You just totally threw the glove down dude! It would be so insulting if you actually knew what I was trying to say. I'm not advocating pure Linux here! I'm saying that MacOS perfectly fills the spot where Windows sits, sans software support. But lets say you migrate your worstation to Mac. You deal with the absolutely horrible hassle of finding new audio/visual applications on the audio/visual platform standard. You eat shit on the games for awhile. If you and enough people do this, the Macintosh market share will increase, and software development for the platform will increase accordingly. Viola! Multiple standards force software companies to support both platforms and MS is suddenly forced to deal with competition. However, you are content to deal with MS's inferior hardware and software. By not holding them accountable for their product quality you ensure lower quality.
Let me clarify a few things, since you seem to have me pegged as a Linux zealot. Linux is no where near ready for the home user desktop market. However, it is very close to a point where it would be usable as a general corporate workstation. The home user market should be dominated by Apple. OSX is stable, powerful, and the UI is marvelous.
In the server arena, Linux should win unless the administrator is not good with unix; in this case Windows can work and OsX Server could fill the void. And just to make sure it is clear, security in general is correlated more closely to administrator skill than it is operating system. All systems are insecure.
I also do a lot of work with video/audio files, and I'm able to find the tools to, say, convert a divx to dvd, for free on the internet.
You do realize that Mac is a giant in the audio/visual world, and runs a unix kernel which makes it compatable with tons of free open source software right?
Macintosh is has PC's beat in almost every category except hardware cost and software support. Of course the fun part about Macs is you get what you pay for; some of the most impressive disk drives, cases, and monitors I've seen have been Macs. The processor is hands-down superior to intel at the moment as well.
If you wanna plug your "invincible" OS X/Linux box strait into your cable connection, that's up to you.
No one is claiming to have an invincible OS; if they should not be listened to. A machine is only as secure as it is well-maintained and configured. This goes for any OS. However, Linux allows for a much deeper customization. This is a double-edged sword in that a proficient administrator can create a solid wall whereas a newb can knock down a section without even knowing it. OS X has a fine security record to my knowledge, much better than Windows.
The fact of the matter is Windows is really the inferior platform of the three, but being industry standard survives none the less. It is not unusable, it just leaves a great deal to ask for. The fact that customers refuse to switch for software purposes just ensures the same lax development practices; you sir, are contributing to the problem.
A certain subset of people see computers as magic boxes. The technitions who fix these boxes might as well be wizards, weaving bizzare spells to bring things back around. If they just broke through their own damned skull and realized every problem has a logical solution things would be fine. If they bothered to ponder the major software systems involved (i.e. the registry, the kernel) computer problems would be less mysterious. And I don't mean fully understand, I just mean have an idea about what it does. Although it may not get the problem fixed, a small amount of knowledge could go a long way towards helping the technition troubleshoot and problem prevention.
In short, efficient computer users must be constantly learning. Many people are too lazy to try and learn, some moreso than others.
Dude... it's just a troll. All you're doing is feeding it. Keep feeding it and it grows, back off and it fades away like a fart: not always right away but diffusion will take its course and it will try some other board in search of its food.
Mod this sucker up.
I have a small amount of plant breeding knowledge, and I was wondering why the hell it mattered; by buying non-hybridized seeds the farmer would have lost money over the yield of his crosses if the above wasn't true.
Limiting revese engineering is harmful to society. The PC is only so standard because reverse engineering is legal. Otherwise it would have remained the propertyof IBM and much less accessable.
Beyond that, software is an intangable entity that is very difficulty to track. Discouraging people from breaking into the software they've bought is hard psychologically. What different is this than publishing mods? What's the difference between that and souping up your car and making a website? Software hacks look exactly like a audio/vehicle tweaks to me and a lot of other people. On top of these problems, software is also so easily recreatable as the act has no percieved reprcussions.
Look at the pace of the technology around you. Bits are rapidly becoming cheaper and cheaper. Software providers are going to have to deal with this, as well as the gradual improvement of computer literacy as PCs have spread. Fighting this is like fighting the tide.
Virus infection is alot more likely. Pretty much the simplest life out there, too. See any problems with that? Once again I must stress I'm pushing concern not alarm.
...in my occasional Europe scan. But yea this just killed that idea. I always forget they have a history of computer cases like this.
I absolutely hate this backwards shit. Software engineers and governments and everone just best get used to the fact that people are going to reverse engineer everything they can. Until they get used to it, lawmaking is just going to go overboard, stifling development and competition.
And I believe the proper response to pointing out an error in your system is "Thank You."
Some algorithims would map well to a reproducing synthetic biological organism. Imagine chemically converting a trash heap with small organisms. An organism that could reproduce itself could in theory get the job done on exponentially quicker.
A simple bug in the containment system could lead to some pretty annoying if not dangerous consequences.
is an automobile building robot 'reproducing'? why would a biological, quite fragile, machine get out of hand that way, except for the sake of a stupid plot on a boring film?
A) Biological machines may not always be fragile. B) As opposed to a current-technology robot, biological units are created from compounds which have a tendency, as yours and my existance suggests, to reproduce itself. It seems logical to me to think that reproduction, even if just by simple binary fission, will be developed sooner rather than later.
The concern is legitiment because not only because of abuse, but also because of the possibility of system faults.
You can't honestly believe militaries aren't going to try and use this. What happens if that stuff gets out?
Or an even closer to home possibility is a messed up project turns out to be dangerous in someway. Will there be restrictions on breeding capability?
I'm not saying the technology is bad or should even be discouraged. I'm just saying this is a big new step, and its accessability will certainly alter the world signifigantly.
Integrate these biological components into a electrical/electronical/mechanical system and you can get some neat toys.
How about a tree designed specifically to hide wireless cameras/microphones?
Home biological garbage disposals, like a fast-paced compost pile.
How about some easily controlled flying insectoid? You could tap into its optical system and save yourself the power of the cameras, just have the transmitter.
Of course I am ignoring the possibilities of abuse. They are both endless and quite horrifying.
...have a whole shitload of documentation down before a single line is coded. That documentation better be good, otherwise you are going to run into all sorts of problems along the way, especially in integration. Clear, concise, descriptive documentation is the key to good software development. Funny how little writing they make you do in engineering school.
Slashdot Mirror
I made no assertions of ignorance. I'm simply predicting that properly engineered software is going to be a continuously growing field as more corporations integrate more complicated software in more systems. I don't just mean workstation/gaming/server software, I'm thinking also of embedded applications such as blenders and all the mundane. Eventually software engineering is going to be so pervasive in the engineering fields that the quality demanded will be much higher.
I'll bet in 5-10 years software engineers are going to be the pimps of the playground. It's more abstract that most engineering fields, and the need for quality software is only going to continue to rise.
I know this is a lowblow, but I smell PHB.
You have to be pretty dense to call any branch of math useless in such an computer/science focused board like slashdot, and I suspect you must be a pretty shitty math teacher if you don't have future engineers/physicists in mind. I suppose you could just be a troll as well. Either way, I wouldn't want your slacker ass teaching my kid.
If the only reason sexual content is censored is to prevent children from mimicing them and making poor sexual choices, then why can't women's breasts be seen on TV? Why do they automatically raise the rating of any game/movie? I'll tell you why: this culture obsessively sexually represses itself. Many other countries are much more open about sex, and many have less problems with STDs and teen pregnency than the US. This is not about role models, this is something much deeper.
I'm with Daniel. Winning money from google for oss dev only to pump the money into MS seems... well it conjures to my mind many adjectives worse than "traitor."
I had never even heard of predicate calculus before this; as mention in previous posts the CS here is laughable relative to *E so I was taken by suprise. I'm even more suprised to see posts besides yours saying that CS is more difficult that CE. It is a simple fact that many people who can't hack CE go CS here.
As to preference, I find it much more enjoyable to program systems that interact with hardware than software. It was not always that way; but at the same time I never understood the methods through which software communicated with hardware. Once you learn the general principles, you are suddenly no longer bound to the PC. You can build a system of any scale and program it to do whatever you want. That was the appeal of CE for me; building little black boxes to automate stuff. I would highly suggest duel majoring as the CECS's I know don't regret the extra knowledge, and the CS's often regret not having a broader background. Just my pair of coppers.
I implied no such thing. A physical engineer should have no problems jumping between applications requiring mechanics (quantum or otherwise), electrodynamics, thermodynamics, optics, etc. without a difficult transition. You are going to have to read a shitload to get involved in any meaningful project. A physicist is just fairly well prepared to jump into nearly any engineering discipline.
There is no MIS major here, so I am not confusing anything. I interact with many CS's and it appears that your CS program does a lot more math than our program; it sounds like you are actually in a good one. As I have been prefixing many of my statements so far, my academic judgements are based on my experiences in each of these programs.
Just don't start thinking that you have a mathmatical edge on a physicist, unless you make a specific point to study math well beyond your requirements (modern quantum will fuck your world up).
I still think you need a hug or a lay or something.
Secondly, at my institution CS is a joke. I realize this isn't a general case, but I have known for a long time that many employers look at the major as a joke too. CS will not make you a software engineer; it takes a certain mentality for that.
In fact, it takes a certain mentality for any technical job. A lot of cats jump into the CS boat expecting the degree work is fully adequate. That is bullshit. You have to be passionate about your field to succeed, computer software doubly so because it changes so rapidly. You can get a 4.0 in CS without developing any real-world applicable skills, and after several years much of what you had learned could be very outdated. It is either keep up or give up, and the latter is optimal unless you love it.
Another point is that, if true, said physicist (who is actually a female according to signature) would look at CE as "special-ed" also, because they have quite a bit in common.
Ok, I used to think this. Once upon a time I was a CS going into CE because I knew I could teach myself all the programming and administrating I wanted. I ran out of CS requirements my Junior year. CE requires more math than CS, and there is a heavy load of EE classes involved; the hardware side has to actually consider analog voltage. Compared to physics most of CE is actually "special ed." However, digital system design can get just as hairy as the design of a physical experiment, and a CE will probably be needed to handle the data signal processing anyway. A large-scale application is one of the most difficult things in the world to design; in many ways much more difficult than a digital hardware system. However, the average CE out of school and the average CS out of school will both be qualified to do the pure software work. The average CS will not be qualified to interface EEPROM to an embedded processor. In terms of coursework, a CS is bound fairly closely to software, whereas a CE it taught from the the power outlet to the screen. With the right electives, you can extend that from the nuke/coal/oil plant through the grid to the outlet.
"...they are suffering from low self esteem and an inferiority complex."
"...is something I would expect from a highschool student."
"..shatter your illusions of grandeur."
Were those (thinly) veiled digs at me? If so, I think you do need a hug. Want a hug? Come on, let's squeeze that anger right out of you.
"I am less interested in logic gates and multipliers than I am in higher level programming. Although we take lots of classes on those topics, anyway."
I was hoping you would say something like that, because you sound like a fucking moron. You think CE is logic gates and multipliers? Seriously, are you an idiot? Do you really think CE's spend their time screwing around with chips on the level of multipliers? Have you ever worked through a microcontroller timing diagram? Did they teach you how to scale analog voltage up and down to interface with A/D and D/A converters? Do you know how to solve difference equations? Do you even know the electrical components required for a standard CMOS inverter? Do you honestly believe CE is as easy as hooking a bunch of gates together and applying power?
And from personal experience, upper level CS classes are like special ed compared to upper level physics.
To reply to the question in general the "do what you love" people are right. Just make sure you know what you love. I went into CE because I taught myself all sorts of software in highschool, and I thought it would be a good idea to generalize. It turned out that I love digital hardware design and interfacing, and that derailed my plans to become a software engineer.
Now I'm about to get my B.S. in CE, and am moving on to a master program in EE. After that, I am seriously considering a PhD in physics. Doing what you love is easy when you love it all; after my masters I'll be well prepared to work within a huge spectrum of engineering disciplines (my focus on physics greatly enhances that).
In short, play around. You may even find that you are more mechanically inclined. College is a good time to give yourself some basic generalization; specialization can wait IMHO.
The term fluid applies to both states of matter. I'm thinking the proper term for the universe would be superliquid.
You wouldn't consider putting an OS on the network without a firewall, but you can't be bothered to look up audio-visual applications? Your stated use is even more general in that all you want to do is convert file formats.
The fact that windows isn't secure out of the box doesn't matter one bit to me. I don't care.
You seem to be missing my point. The only OS I know of that it is even reasonable to trust "out of the box" is OpenBSD, simply because it is designed with security in mind. Beyond that some updating and configuring is required for all operating systems to be secure. I said that Linux in the hands of the experienced will give you security superior to the other two platforms mentioned; otherwise it is likely to be less secure. That leaves Mac and Windows to the uninformed, and Mac keeps it cleaner.
As far as Windows being my fault, I say it's also your fault. Why don't you develop a Linux distro that is as easy as windows?
OMG!!!!!!11 You just totally threw the glove down dude! It would be so insulting if you actually knew what I was trying to say. I'm not advocating pure Linux here! I'm saying that MacOS perfectly fills the spot where Windows sits, sans software support. But lets say you migrate your worstation to Mac. You deal with the absolutely horrible hassle of finding new audio/visual applications on the audio/visual platform standard. You eat shit on the games for awhile. If you and enough people do this, the Macintosh market share will increase, and software development for the platform will increase accordingly. Viola! Multiple standards force software companies to support both platforms and MS is suddenly forced to deal with competition. However, you are content to deal with MS's inferior hardware and software. By not holding them accountable for their product quality you ensure lower quality.
Let me clarify a few things, since you seem to have me pegged as a Linux zealot. Linux is no where near ready for the home user desktop market. However, it is very close to a point where it would be usable as a general corporate workstation. The home user market should be dominated by Apple. OSX is stable, powerful, and the UI is marvelous.
In the server arena, Linux should win unless the administrator is not good with unix; in this case Windows can work and OsX Server could fill the void. And just to make sure it is clear, security in general is correlated more closely to administrator skill than it is operating system. All systems are insecure.
You do realize that Mac is a giant in the audio/visual world, and runs a unix kernel which makes it compatable with tons of free open source software right?
Macintosh is has PC's beat in almost every category except hardware cost and software support. Of course the fun part about Macs is you get what you pay for; some of the most impressive disk drives, cases, and monitors I've seen have been Macs. The processor is hands-down superior to intel at the moment as well.
If you wanna plug your "invincible" OS X/Linux box strait into your cable connection, that's up to you.
No one is claiming to have an invincible OS; if they should not be listened to. A machine is only as secure as it is well-maintained and configured. This goes for any OS. However, Linux allows for a much deeper customization. This is a double-edged sword in that a proficient administrator can create a solid wall whereas a newb can knock down a section without even knowing it. OS X has a fine security record to my knowledge, much better than Windows.
The fact of the matter is Windows is really the inferior platform of the three, but being industry standard survives none the less. It is not unusable, it just leaves a great deal to ask for. The fact that customers refuse to switch for software purposes just ensures the same lax development practices; you sir, are contributing to the problem.
In short, efficient computer users must be constantly learning. Many people are too lazy to try and learn, some moreso than others.
Dude... it's just a troll. All you're doing is feeding it. Keep feeding it and it grows, back off and it fades away like a fart: not always right away but diffusion will take its course and it will try some other board in search of its food.
Mod this sucker up.
I have a small amount of plant breeding knowledge, and I was wondering why the hell it mattered; by buying non-hybridized seeds the farmer would have lost money over the yield of his crosses if the above wasn't true.
Beyond that, software is an intangable entity that is very difficulty to track. Discouraging people from breaking into the software they've bought is hard psychologically. What different is this than publishing mods? What's the difference between that and souping up your car and making a website? Software hacks look exactly like a audio/vehicle tweaks to me and a lot of other people. On top of these problems, software is also so easily recreatable as the act has no percieved reprcussions.
Look at the pace of the technology around you. Bits are rapidly becoming cheaper and cheaper. Software providers are going to have to deal with this, as well as the gradual improvement of computer literacy as PCs have spread. Fighting this is like fighting the tide.
Virus infection is alot more likely. Pretty much the simplest life out there, too. See any problems with that? Once again I must stress I'm pushing concern not alarm.
I absolutely hate this backwards shit. Software engineers and governments and everone just best get used to the fact that people are going to reverse engineer everything they can. Until they get used to it, lawmaking is just going to go overboard, stifling development and competition.
And I believe the proper response to pointing out an error in your system is "Thank You."
is an automobile building robot 'reproducing'? why would a biological, quite fragile, machine get out of hand that way, except for the sake of a stupid plot on a boring film?
A) Biological machines may not always be fragile. B) As opposed to a current-technology robot, biological units are created from compounds which have a tendency, as yours and my existance suggests, to reproduce itself. It seems logical to me to think that reproduction, even if just by simple binary fission, will be developed sooner rather than later.
You can't honestly believe militaries aren't going to try and use this. What happens if that stuff gets out?
Or an even closer to home possibility is a messed up project turns out to be dangerous in someway. Will there be restrictions on breeding capability?
I'm not saying the technology is bad or should even be discouraged. I'm just saying this is a big new step, and its accessability will certainly alter the world signifigantly.
Or we aren't responsible enough and destroy ourselves. A bug in the program perhaps?
Integrate these biological components into a electrical/electronical/mechanical system and you can get some neat toys.
How about a tree designed specifically to hide wireless cameras/microphones?
Home biological garbage disposals, like a fast-paced compost pile.
How about some easily controlled flying insectoid? You could tap into its optical system and save yourself the power of the cameras, just have the transmitter.
Of course I am ignoring the possibilities of abuse. They are both endless and quite horrifying.
feel sorry for citybank's webserver?
...have a whole shitload of documentation down before a single line is coded. That documentation better be good, otherwise you are going to run into all sorts of problems along the way, especially in integration. Clear, concise, descriptive documentation is the key to good software development. Funny how little writing they make you do in engineering school.