I think that would be like training an airline pilot to fly by making them take the stick of an F-22 in the middle of a dogfight. There is a certain level of proficiency that is needed before you can progress, and if a student hasn't reached this level, all the trial by fire will do is char them. You need to get them to the point where they are not concerned about how to write code before you make them work in the framework that code exists in. A personal anecdote – I had to learn how to develop code in C under UNIX at the start of my first compiler course; but I already knew how to program in other languages, so C was just new syntax, and UNIX was not too much of a hurdle.
Now, once a student has taken a couple of programming courses, a series of courses that do enforce real-world constraints would be very desirable. All courses after the introductory set could require source control, and some could deal with portions of the real-world, like versioning – start with a simple 2-week project, and once that's done, start adding new features, and some back-porting. Another could deal with code repair – everyone gets a copy of a program that has bugs, and they need to fix them.
Another issue I have with Jeff's post is that it assumes all software is PC-based, web-centric, standalone applications. Developers working on a single server in a large application suite that runs under UNIX, for example, might not need to worry about deployment, because that is a solved issue for that system – their new version of the server will be packaged by the existing tools, and the upgrade issues are part of the DBA's work.
So while there is plenty of room for improvement in the education of a software developer, it shouldn't be like dropping someone onto a speeding motorcycle; it should be like learning to ride a bike - you spend some time with training wheels first.
Technorati Tags --
Software, SoftwareDevelopment, Computers, Programming
HTTP
No comments:
Post a Comment