Andrew Walenstein wrote:
> sure like to know. The corollary question is: if EUP becomes
> significantly easier for the untrained (play along with me
> here), what characterizes the things that universities and
> programmer certification courses will no longer need to teach?
That question is a slippery slope. At the risk of over-generalizing
I will postulate that there are already crucial programming skills
which universities do not teach anylonger (if they ever have).
Today most effort is put on software modelling and design, and almost
none on implementation and debugging, partly because a proper design
allegely makes implementation trivial.
However, the vast majority of computer programmers will spent more
time on implementation than on design (the ratio may be inversely
proportional to their seniority and experience with the problem domain).
Usually freshly graduated programmers have to be taught even the most
basic skills of making robust software, such as portability, clarity
(because somebody else is going to maintain the code), error handling
strategies, and debugging methods.
I wish there was more emphasis on implementation and debugging in the
educational institutions, because it teaches people invaluable skills
which they are going to need sooner than later.
To return to the original question about design in EUP, I do not
contest such skills may improve EUP, but there may actually be some
merit to the "hackish" approach of EUP. As a chinese proverb goes
"I hear and forget, I see and remember, I try and understand."
