Re:their SE course sucks
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 1
Abelson was right, in a way, because anyone can learn a programming language. The reason that this is applicable is the fact that you teach students logic, not programming. Once the logical flow and implementation of software is understood, the differences between langauges really becomes syntax. For instance, if you know what an object is and how objects interact in their environment, then writing a class specification and implementation in C++ or Ada is really the same, just differnent syntax.
As far as what Jilles said, he is not saying that creativity and mental ability are not needed in engineering, but that practicality must be stressed as well as creativity, and the introduction of real world circumstances as well as creative processes into the same domain is the essence of engineering. Engineering is about delivering a product to a customer, so both are important.
Re:their SE course sucks
on
MIT Everyware
·
· Score: 1
Jilles,
I would have to agree with you on this. The class is really more a class on object-orientation and object-oriented design, as opposed to software engineering. I think the problem really is that the description and objectives of the class are different from the material covered in the lecture notes.
What I really did not like about the lecuture notes was the fact that their object designs did not follow UML; standards of design are important for engineering for long-term readablility and future maintenance of code, which is where a great deal of the time involved in the software life-cycle is found. No mention of formal specification either, which I myself feel is important, espcially for the understanding of mathematically reliable systems and the bridge between requirements and design.
By the way, the example of the class you gave was a very good one, and I am also a fan of the experiental type of software engineering education. Several of the classes that I have had in Software Engineering have been conducted in this manner, and I found them to be the most realistic and beneficial.
This is perferctly legal in the United States, and I assume that copyright law is similar in the U.K. where this guy is actually from ( not from Italy ).
Look at U.S. Copyright Law, which is found in U.S. Code Title 17. Under Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117, Subsection (a) and (a)(1), it is stated that it is not copyright infringement of a copyrighted program to make a copy or adaptation of the program for the purpose of allowing the program to work on a machine.
What this person did was to adapt current code produced by VIA to work on his machine, which is legal, at least in the United States anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Abelson was right, in a way, because anyone can learn a programming language. The reason that this is applicable is the fact that you teach students logic, not programming. Once the logical flow and implementation of software is understood, the differences between langauges really becomes syntax. For instance, if you know what an object is and how objects interact in their environment, then writing a class specification and implementation in C++ or Ada is really the same, just differnent syntax.
As far as what Jilles said, he is not saying that creativity and mental ability are not needed in engineering, but that practicality must be stressed as well as creativity, and the introduction of real world circumstances as well as creative processes into the same domain is the essence of engineering. Engineering is about delivering a product to a customer, so both are important.
Jilles,
I would have to agree with you on this. The class is really more a class on object-orientation and object-oriented design, as opposed to software engineering. I think the problem really is that the description and objectives of the class are different from the material covered in the lecture notes.
What I really did not like about the lecuture notes was the fact that their object designs did not follow UML; standards of design are important for engineering for long-term readablility and future maintenance of code, which is where a great deal of the time involved in the software life-cycle is found. No mention of formal specification either, which I myself feel is important, espcially for the understanding of mathematically reliable systems and the bridge between requirements and design.
By the way, the example of the class you gave was a very good one, and I am also a fan of the experiental type of software engineering education. Several of the classes that I have had in Software Engineering have been conducted in this manner, and I found them to be the most realistic and beneficial.
This is perferctly legal in the United States, and I assume that copyright law is similar in the U.K. where this guy is actually from ( not from Italy ).
Look at U.S. Copyright Law, which is found in U.S. Code Title 17. Under Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117, Subsection (a) and (a)(1), it is stated that it is not copyright infringement of a copyrighted program to make a copy or adaptation of the program for the purpose of allowing the program to work on a machine.
What this person did was to adapt current code produced by VIA to work on his machine, which is legal, at least in the United States anyway.