HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: `Engineer' in your title
From: dain@holmes.ece.uc.edu (Dain Samples)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:04:26 GMT
Reply-To: Dain.Samples@uc.edu
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Originator: dain@holmes.ece.uc.edu


Can you call yourself a `software engineer' in the state of Ohio?

Someone inquired as to my source of the law I cited in a previous
posting.  Here are the relevant parts of the News Release to members
of the Ohio Society of Professional Engineers, begin quote:

	   AN OPSE NEWS RELEASE TO MEMBERS - JUNE 30, 1992
		    A LEGISLATIVE VICTORY FOR OSPE

Sub. H.B. 482, the ``Engineers Title Bill,'' was signed into law by
Governor George Voinovich on June 24, 1992.

The major provision in H.B. 482 is the enactment of a new section of
law which states that:

(1) No individual shall use the term ``engineer'' by itself unless the
person is a graduate of an accredited engineering program or is a
licensed professional engineer.

(2) No individual shall use the term ``engineer'' in connection with
another term which would imply that the person is a graduate of an
accredited engineering curriculum unless the person is a graduate of
an ABET curriculum.  For example, a person could not say they [sic]
were a civil, mechanical, chemical, or electrical engineer unless in
fact the person graduated from such a program.

End quote.

Questions: I heard a rumor that MIT's EE program is not ABET
accredited.  True?  Does this mean MIT graduates cannot call
themselves `engineers' in Ohio?

More specifically for this newsgroup: does this mean that we cannot
call ourselves `software engineers', if we so chose?  Or do we have an
escape clause in that `software engineer' is not a term that
automatically would imply graduation from an ABET accredited program?
-- 
========================================================================
A. Dain Samples, Dain.Samples@uc.edu, wk:(513)556-4783, hm:(513)771-5492
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is so difficult to find the beginning.  Or, better, it is difficult
to begin at the beginning.  And not try to go further back.
                      -Wittgentstein (from "On Certainty")

May the background be with you.
                      -Heidegger (from "Being and Time", paraphrased)
Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 12:54:23 EDT
From: Randy Krail <RS0ORK@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Excelerator for Windows 3.0?

In article <1992Aug9.090727.18333@ccsun7.csie.nctu.edu.tw>, ccp@csie.nctu.edu.tw
(Chin-Peng Choo) says:
>
>I wonder if Excelerator/IS for Windows is available.
>Any help will be appreciated.

Sorry to have to post this to the group.  My REPLY to this message was
undeliverable.

Yes it is available.  We've been using it for several weeks.  Overall
I'm no impressed.  INTERSOLV spent too musch time mkaing the interface
look like something.  Unfortunately it doesn't look like a Windows
application.  They should have spent less time making the graphics
(especially the ICONs) and more time adding functionality.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph S. Krail
Database Analyst
Rohm and Haas Company          E-Mail: rskrail@rohmhaas.com (Internet)
From: stephen@moclips (Stephen L Nicoud)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Surveys - general comment
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:40:06 GMT
Reply-To: stephen@boeing.com (Stephen L Nicoud)
Organization: Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Bellevue, WA USA
Originator: stephen@atc.boeing.com


   On 18 Aug 92 13:12:01 GMT in a comp.software-eng article, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) wrote:

   In article <1992Aug17.133756.13870@seg.npl.co.uk>, sma@seg.npl.co.uk (Stephen Mark Austin) writes:
   > 
   >          Request for Participation: Formal Methods in Industry Survey
   [...]
   
   I will state this again.  The purpose of the survey is good.  The
   questions are appropriate.  I cannot and will not participate since
   you are potentially asking for company confidential information,
   that I am not permitted to just mail out.
   
   I see these requests for info fairly often (1/month?).  I doubt if
   the responses give the right kind of coverage of the industry that
   is needed in order to be valid.
   
   George Kambic

I have to concur with George.  We, also, can not release information
that is confidential to the company.

I'm sure Boeing has participated in surveys where confidentiality was
assured, but I would bet lots of money that all sorts of legal
documents were signed before the release of proprietary information.

Stephen
-- 
Stephen L Nicoud  <stephen@boeing.com>  bcstec!bcsaic!stephen
Boeing Computer Services Research and Technology, Computer Science
Bellevue, Washington  USA
"I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks."
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: edy@andersen.com (Edy Liongosari)
Subject: Re: software reuse 
Organization: Andersen Consulting
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:26:16 GMT


I would like to thank all of you who responded to my question regarding
newsletters about software re-use.

I am compiling a summary of all responses I received so far. 
I am quite busy at this point, so it will take me a day or two to finish
compiling the summary. I will post it to the net when I am done since
quite a few people show interest in the answers.

Also, for those who know, would you please tell me what projects out there 
that focus on software reuse? Who are the players (i.e., XYZ company,
DARPA, etc.) and who to contact to get more info about the project? Also,
what is the focus of the project with respect to software reuse
(i.e., methodology, indexing, etc) ?

I am just trying to figure out "who is doing what" in the field software reuse.
I know that I get the answers to the questions above by going to 
conferences or seminars in software reuse and asking around.
However, by asking you directly this way, I get a faster response.

At this point, I know (please correct me if I am wrong):

   1. STARS - Software Technology for Adaptable, Reliable Systems.
      DARPA-sponsored. Contractors: Boeing, IBM and Paramax.
      For more info contact Hal Hawley (hawley@astars.ds.boeing.com)
      Focus: Methodology

   2. Software Reuse Research Project.
      By Software Productivity Consortium (SPC).
      For more info contact facemire@software.org
      Focus: Methodology

Thank you.
-Edy

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edy S. Liongosari                                E-mail: edy@andersen.com
Center for Strategic Technology Research            Phone: (312) 507-8482
Andersen Consulting                                   Fax: (312) 507-3526

DISCLAIMER: My opinion does not reflect my employer's opinion
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: king@rtsg.mot.com (Steven King, Software Archaeologist)
Subject: Re: What is Software Engineering
Reply-To: king@rtsg.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:56:01 GMT

ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) publicly declared:
>musa@cmptrc.lonestar.org (Jeff Musa) writes:
>>Those that create hack programs, force maintenance programmers
>>to write hack fixes and these (one on top of another) cause more time to 
>>be spent figuring out and rewritting code just to fix or enhance.
>
>In my environment those who create the systems can expect to maintain
>and develop them, usually working directly with the users.  Self-interest
>is a powerful incentive to do it right.

Not necessarily.  *IF* the developers believe that doing it right will
save them hassle in the long run, then you're right.  But I've worked
with enough people who have an "Oh, let's just make it work" attitude.
This is regardless of the fact that they'll have to fix or add on to it
a year or two later, after they've forgotten what they've done.

Another dis-incentive to do it right is schedules and management
buy-in.  I'm currently embattled to convince the managers of a project
to let us do it right to avoid headaches down the road.  The managers
want to "just make it work" and don't agree that neat code is
significantly easier to maintain in the long run.  Mind you, most of
the managers come from a hardware rather than a software background.

I agree totally with Jeff Musa.  Hack development forces hack
maintenance, REGARDLESS of who is developing and who is maintaining, or
of the fact that the same person may be doing both.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
The amount of work that actually got done during the   |      Steven King
week is inversely proportional to the number of        |   Motorola Cellular
entries in 'timetool'.                                 |   king@rtsg.mot.com
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
From: luciano@athos.Berkeley.EDU (Luciano Lavagno)
Subject: Research and/or tools for cost estimation for large software projects
Followup-To: comp.software-eng
Keywords: software cost estimation
Reply-To: luciano@athos.Berkeley.EDU (Luciano Lavagno)
Organization: UC Berkeley IC CAD Group
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:18:44 GMT

Are you aware of any ?
Replies by e-mail and postings will be summarized if there is interest.
Thanks !
Luciano
P.s. please, no flames about posting to comp.lang groups. I just needed a wide
audience, and I redirected followups to comp.software-eng.
-- 
Luciano Lavagno            luciano@ic.Berkeley.EDU            +1-510-642-5012
Dept. of EECS, 207-69 Cory Hall, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Request for reference to SE
Date: 12 Aug 92 08:51:11 EST

I recently asked for two pieces of information that gone by in recent articles
that I had (gulp!) failed to extract and save.  One I have (thanks Scott),
which is the original reference to the waterfall SDLC model. 

The second is the original reference to the term "software engineering" or
"software engineer".  Help?


George Kambic
kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
From: A.J.C.Blyth@newcastle.ac.uk (Andrew J C Blyth)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What is Software Engineering
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:56:47 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle Upon Tyne

In article <1992Aug20.063037.28697@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> This probably implies that Software Engineers will have to master the
> basic physical sciences and their analytic techniques.  It also implies
> that other engineers will have to learn the basics of `software theory.'

Here in the UK, courses are certified by the BCS (British Computer Society).
So if you apply to become a certified engineer from the BSC and if your
degree came from an acredited school then you are exempt from certain
examines. This forces poeple and universities to teach certain subject.

Andrew
From: cobarruvias@asd2.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Intersolve PVC info wanted
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:32:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA/JSC

Anyone have any information on a Vax based product called Intersolve PVC which
is a configuration management tool?

John R. Cobarruvias
NASA/JSC 
713-483-9357 
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: johnson@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Ralph Johnson)
Subject: Re: Do you use SADT ?
Keywords: SADT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 03:20:41 GMT

A decade or so ago I spent several months trying to figure out SADT,
and decided that the documents that were supposed to describe it didn't.
Where does one go to learn it?  Also, if it is so wonderful, why don't
more people use it?

Ralph Johnson -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: kanko@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Mark Kanko)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What is Software Engineering
Summary: Yes, Includes Refinements
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:04:17 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University

>ghm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
> I don't dispute the figures as such, but I wonder if there's some double
> counting going on.  We're looking at a project at the moment for which
> we estimate the development time of a working core system to be 6 months,
> with at least a further 12 months for refinement and further development.
> Now, is that "maintenance"?  By some definitions it is (since it involves
> fixing problems with existing code), so if you analyse our time on that
> basis it will look as though we're spending a lot of time on maintenance.
> However, is that a problem?  I don't think so, because I don't see 
> maintenance and development as necessarily distinct.  In fact, most of
> our software "maintenance" involves additional functionality or altered
> functionality in response to changing user requirements.

I agree with your comments and that is exactly the point:  The issue
is not whether we call a certain effort "development" or "maintenance"
but rather the fact that we don't (usually) build a software system one
time and then never have to touch it again!  That is why it is so important
to design/implement with future maintenance in mind.  One of Lehman's 'Laws of
S/W Evolution' says that any (I'd say most) existing software system 
must either evolve (i.e., be modified for whatever reason) or eventually
become obsolete.

I wouldn't call the quoted numbers "double-counted".  Then DO include
the kind of refinement you're talking about.  This is called perfective
maintenance (again, see Pressman book).  Three other kinds are corrective
(to fix bugs or defects), adaptive (to meet changing H/W or data envi-
ronment requirements), and preventive (to enhance future maintainability).

Just to put this all in a different light-- Many of the USAF's fighter 
aircraft have been extremely effective in combat.  But when it comes
to maintenance, some of them have been real "bears".  Entire subassemblies
not related to the maintenance task had to be removed in order to get
to the actual maintenance task  (e.g., having to remove the entire ejection
seat so that a battery for the system clock can be replaced).  Well, we
don't build airplanes like that anymore.  Complete Reliability and
Maintainability assessments are done (and redone) on the entire design
before any sheetmetal is bent.  Why?  Because when it comes combat time,
we can't afford a 3-hour turn-around between sorties for a routine
maintenance task.  Are there compromises?  Sure!  But the compromises
are a matter of planned (engineered?) choice, not chance.  

I've really appreciated seeing all the viewpoints on this subject.
[I didn't say I agreed with them all!  ;-) ]
--
/*** Mark Kanko   Arizona State University   kanko@asuvax.eas.asu.edu ***/
From: paul@hal.COM (Paul Sander)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: sofware reuse
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:00:21 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: parlo.hal.com

In article <2250@shuksan.boeing.com> scott@shuksan.boeing.com (Scott Moody) writes:
>It is sad that there isn't a 'reuse' group on the net.

Actually, comp.sw.components is a newsgroup whose charter is to discuss
resuable software components.  It hasn't much traffic over its lifetime,
though.
-- 
Paul M. Sander  (408) 379-7000  |  "No guts, no glory"
HaL Computer Systems, Inc.      |  -- Bumper Sticker
1315 Dell Avenue                |  "No brains, no headaches"
Campbell, CA  95008  USA        |  -- Mindy Lee
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: lehman@george.arc.nasa.gov (John Lehman -- GDP)
Subject: Job titles (was: What Is Software Engineering?)
Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:20:46 GMT

 >> 
 >> What's the point of this discussion? Are we really trying to nail down
 >> the definition of "software engineering" or just get a better feel
 >> for what it is we are supposed to be doing?
 >> 
 >> It seems that if someone were able to prove that a software engineer
 >> is a person who spent 15% of his day on the beach, everyone in this
 >> discusion with "Software Engineer" on their business card would get
 >> their bathing suit out.
 >> 
 >> I think that part of the problem is that the duties assigned to a 
 >> software person tend to cover the entire life-cycle so it is hard to
 >> create a more specific title.
 >> 
 >> Let's get back to discussing how we get the job down, not what we call
 >> it.
 >> 

Well said; if you don't take titles seriously.  Some of
us just don't like to wear ill-fitting labels that invoke
wrong perceptions by others.  For example I'd prefer that
no-one call me a "professional" unless I've already done
something to justify such a lofty word.  Not that I'd deny
that particular label myself; but something plainer and
provable would feel more comfortable.

Regarding discussing "how to get the job [done]" --  are 
there any spin-off groups, from comp.software-eng, that
discuss specific groups of tools, such as variants of
"make" or "software configuration management tools"?
The FAQ's of comp.software-eng help some, but not enough.

lehman@ames.arc.nasa.gov,
   Software technician; and sometimes a writer, technical 
   writer, debugger, programmer, or engineer; and, often
   a Student.
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: mwyllie@at4cad.intel.com (Mary Wyllie)
Subject: On-line Problem Tracking
Originator: mwyllie@at4cad
Organization: intel
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 22:49:20 GMT

Some time ago, in a previous job, I used a tool called 'bugsub' as an on-line
problem tracking tool.  The tool seemed reasonable for our needs, but I don't 
have any idea where it came from.  Anyone familiar with this tool?  Where can
I get it, or are there other tools out there that I should be looking at 
first?

Thanks for the input.

Mary
mwyllie@at4cad.intel.com
(602)554-3194
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What is Software Engineering
From: dain@holmes.ece.uc.edu (Dain Samples)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:34:19 GMT
Reply-To: Dain.Samples@uc.edu
 <1992Aug9.181448.22302@hubcap.clemson.edu> 
 <1992Aug11.155431.4263@mole-end.matawan.nj.us> <1992Aug12.084215.8691@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Originator: dain@holmes.ece.uc.edu


In article <1992Aug12.084215.8691@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com>, kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug11.155431.4263@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
|> > In article <1992Aug9.181448.22302@hubcap.clemson.edu>, ofut@hubcap.clemson.edu (A. Jeff Offutt) writes:
|> >> >> Do you believe software can be engineered?
|> [...interesting stuff....]
|> >> Can we claim to be SOFTWARE ENGINEERS?
|> >> Not until we put SAFETY and QUALITY first!
|> > 
|> > We have to show that there is enough science to our work, and then
|> > show that we can take the kind of project responsibility that a PE
|> > takes.  I'd really like to see the PE societies take an interest here.
|> 
|> Don't worry about the PE societies.  The lawyers will find you, totally
|> independent of the amount of science and responsibility in our work.  (No
|> smiley.)

Indeed not.  The State of Ohio passed a law last month the forbids
anyone from using the term `engineer' in their title or description
unless:

	(1) They are licensed by a state recognized licensing board.
	(2) They graduated from an ABET accredited department of
		engineering.  

Note that ABET is the accreditation organization for *engineering*
departments; CSAB (I think is the acronym) is the accrediation
organization for Computer Science departments.  For those of you
planning to live in the state of Ohio and getting your degree from a
Computer Science department, you will have legal problems if you call
yourself a `software engineer' and do not become a licensed engineer.

-- 
========================================================================
A. Dain Samples, Dain.Samples@uc.edu, wk:(513)556-4783, hm:(513)771-5492
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is so difficult to find the beginning.  Or, better, it is difficult
to begin at the beginning.  And not try to go further back.
                      -Wittgentstein (from "On Certainty")

May the background be with you.
                      -Heidegger (from "Being and Time", paraphrased)
From: bradlee@cg-atla.UUCP (Rob Bradlee)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What is Software Engineering
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:02:32 GMT
Reply-To: bradlee@cg-atla.UUCP (Rob Bradlee)
Organization: Agfa Compugraphic Division

In article <1992Aug9.181448.22302@hubcap.clemson.edu> ofut@hubcap.clemson.edu (A. Jeff Offutt) writes:
>
>Here is my perception of what the above list is for the software industry:
>
>MECHANICAL ENGINEERING          SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
>______________________          ____________________
>   1. Safety                       1. Delivery date
>   2. Quality                      2. Cost
>   3. Cost                         3. Use latest "whiz-bang" technique (OO)
>   4. Delivery date                 ...
>                                   n. Quality
>
Here at my company the list is this:

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
--------------------
1. Delivery Date
2. Delivery Date
3. Delivery Date
4. Cost

And cost really means "do it with the available bodies unless you can make it
look like a crisis and then we'll pull some people off one of the other crises
so that you can meet your first three priorities."  The obvious reply is 
"Well your company doesn't do Software Engineering".  I agree.


-- 
Rob Bradlee  w:(508)-658-5600 X5153 
Agfa Corporation.                      ...!{decvax}!cg-atla!bradlee
200 Ballardvale St.                        bradlee@cg-atla.agfa.com
Wilmington, Mass. 01887
From: kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: What is Software Engineering
Date: 12 Aug 92 08:42:15 EST

In article <1992Aug11.155431.4263@mole-end.matawan.nj.us>, mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:
> In article <1992Aug9.181448.22302@hubcap.clemson.edu>, ofut@hubcap.clemson.edu (A. Jeff Offutt) writes:
>> >> Do you believe software can be engineered?
[...interesting stuff....]
>> Can we claim to be SOFTWARE ENGINEERS?
>> Not until we put SAFETY and QUALITY first!
> 
> We have to show that there is enough science to our work, and then
> show that we can take the kind of project responsibility that a PE
> takes.  I'd really like to see the PE societies take an interest here.

Don't worry about the PE societies.  The lawyers will find you, totally
independent of the amount of science and responsibility in our work.  (No
smiley.)

George Kambic
standard disclaimer

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
From: brandon@evb.com (Brandon)
Subject: Testing Parallel Components
Organization: EVB Software Engineering, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:05:53 GMT

I'm curious to hear what people are doing to test parallel software
components.  Any information would be appreviated.  
	Brandon Goldfedder (brandon@evb.com)

-- 
Congratulations!  You have purchased an extremely fine device that
would give you thousands of years of trouble-free service, except that
you undoubtably will destroy it via some typical bonehead consumer
maneuver.  Which is why we ask you to PLEASE FOR GOD'S SAKE READ THIS