Re: Discontinued Certification

• Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• In reply to: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Next in thread: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Reply: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Reply: The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:41:13 -0700

The fact that this discussion is even taking place is the
very reason why "real" engineers laugh their asses off
when an IT "professional" refers to "software
engineering", or to themselves as a "software engineer".

Imagine building a bridge, or sky-scraper using trial-and-
error?

$0.02, please.

>-----Original Message-----
>I was referring to trial and error, taking apart and
>putting back together when coming up with the design
>solution. Prior to publishing a design document.
>
>Compile the business requirements.
>
>Do
>Document the requirements.
>Review the requirements (Users, business analyst,
>management, project team.. all concerned and/or interest
>parties).
>This usually leads to a refinement of the requirements.
>Loop While (AllAgree = False)
>
>
>Design a solution based on the requirements, available
>resources, maintainability and management restrictions.
>(In 1995 my proposal to make a new system interface Y2K
>compliant was shot down by management, the effort to do
>it at that time was minute).
>
>You can only do what they will let you do.
>
>For Time = Start To Deadline
>Do
> Do
> Document or refine the design
> Review the design with the available input
> Loop While (YouAreSatisfied = False)
>
> Review the design with the above mentioned. (I know
>this should be a function call)
>
>Loop While (AllAgree = False)
>Next
>
>Code
>Unit Test
>System Test
>Implement
>
>I do make mistakes while coding; I do review the code for
>efficiency and make changes, prior to system testing.
>
>Pseudo design is a given. But I must admit I hate pseudo
>coding at the detail level. It just seems faster to code
>it, review it, and revise it if it can be made more
>efficient.
>
> Speaking of efficient, what book(s) are really good at
>allowing you to get the most out of VB 6.0? With so many
>objects, methods and properties and so many books
>claiming to be the ultimate guide... Or are you better
>off just using F1 and trying and trying and trying..
>Years ago I thought IBM manuals were difficult, but then
>got the hang of them. Microsoft has improved obscurity
>over IBM :)
>
>
>>Programming and system analysis require trial and error.
>
>I disagree as there is no room for 'trial and error'.
>Maybe this is
>why software development is seen as being restrictively
>expensive.
>
>>You take it apart, put it back together, see how it
>>looks, find a better solution, and then put it together
>>the right way.
>
>Why not get it right first time! Any software development
>project
>which reaches implementation and fails, is a result of
>poor
>management, the project simply should never get that far.
>One famous
>quote which makes me laugh goes, 'Company never has
>enough time to
>develop software right, but the company always has time
>to do develop
>the software all over again'.
>
>It's all about quality. The quality of the company's
>procedures,
>standards and how these are used determines the
>likelihood of project
>success or failure.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Unfortunately, yes. Being unemployed and having lost a
>>>potential position over a Mainframe Assembler test that
>>>asked about Macros I have never seen before and have
>not
>>>been able to even find information about since, I am
>>>leery. A decade ago when the company I worked for
>needed
>>>an Assembler program maintained, it always landed on my
>>>desk. And I always resolved the issue. I am not an
>>>Assembler Guru, just tenacious. I have known people who
>>>have gotten Assembler jobs who are utterly useless.
>>
>>And no doubt the companies that hired these people were
>useless too.
>>
>>BTW, hope something comes up real soon.
>>
>>>Someone is hand feeding the answers to these tests,
>those
>>>getting them are employed.
>>
>>I've heard this a lot, it's just real poor selection
>process, hence
>>what you said above.
>>
>>>Many years ago I took a Walden logic test at one
>company
>>>(Mass Mutual, on site), I don't know how I did, but I
>did
>>>not get the job. A month later I took the test at
>another
>>>company, I got the job. After hiring me I was told that
>I
>>>got the highest score they had ever seen. The
>>>only "cheating" was I was able to do the test faster
>the
>>>second time because I remembered the solutions from the
>>>previous time, and the questions I didn't know the
>answer
>>>to I retained in my head and sought out the solution
>>>after the first test.
>>
>>When we look to hire people, we conduct tests on real
>world scenarios
>>related to 'our' business. No coding just analysis and
>design.The
>>approach taken in designing a solution to a real problem
>gives us what
>>we need to know about that person.
>>
>>If we wanted someone who could pass logic tests, we go
>to the local
>>high school.
>>
>>To me this just goes to show why so many companies have
>utterly
>>useless IT infrastructures - get the 'right' people
>for 'your'
>>business....
>>
>>>I have never taken a Microsoft certification test, I
>have
>>>no idea what to expect for idiosyncrasies. I have
>played
>>>with VB 6.0 off and on for a couple of years now on my
>>>own. There are multiple ways of doing things; I am
>taking
>>>the course to hopefully learn some things I don't know
>>>and better (or most acceptable) technique.
>>
>>The exams use an easy point and click approach and are
>easy for those
>>people who understand the product.
>>
>>>I totally agree with your opinion that those being
>tested
>>>should understand the concepts on what they are
>learning.
>>>That is my primary objective. But the playing field is
>>>not level, those taking practice tests and getting high
>>>scores stand out. First I learn and practice. But when
>I
>>>understand the concepts I don't see how to compete with
>>>those who are studying the tests themselves. The
>business
>>>paradigm is management does not need to know what it is
>>>that they are managing, only how to manage. They all
>too
>>>often rely on tests and buzz words to make hiring
>>>decisions; also HR is often the gate keeper, so even if
>>>the manager is knowledgeable HR uses the tests to pre
>>>select who gets to be interviewed by the manager.
>>
>>I believe you will find the 'buzz word' days are well
>and truly over.
>>
>>I really find this hard to believe. How on earth can a
>test which may
>>well simply expect the taker to be recite the names of
>properties of
>>component, be of any use to determining if that person
>has the
>>aptitude required for implementing solutions
>to 'business' problems?
>>
>>>Programming and system analysis require trial and error.
>>
>>I disagree as there is no room for 'trial and error'.
>Maybe this is
>>why software development is seen as being restrictively
>expensive.
>>
>>>You take it apart, put it back together, see how it
>>>looks, find a better solution, and then put it together
>>>the right way.
>>
>>Why not get it right first time! Any software
>development project
>>which reaches implementation and fails, is a result of
>poor
>>management, the project simply should never get that
>far. One famous
>>quote which makes me laugh goes, 'Company never has
>enough time to
>>develop software right, but the company always has time
>to do develop
>>the software all over again'.
>>
>>It's all about quality. The quality of the company's
>procedures,
>>standards and how these are used determines the
>likelihood of project
>>success or failure.
>>
>>> Each error is a learning experience. Some
>>>never learn from errors.
>>
>>Finding errors before they becomes faults is of absolute
>paramount
>>importance in software engineering. An error in
>requirements which
>>manifests itself through design, implementation and into
>testing,
>>could cost typically a 1000 times more to address and
>rectify than had
>>the error been found during some formal review during
>requirements
>>analysis.
>>
>>The answer? review, review and review....
>>
>>>How do you test for that?
>>
>>Experience and understanding - it's that simple
>(although hard to
>>achieve).
>>
>>Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
>>.
>>
>.
>

• Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• In reply to: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Next in thread: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Reply: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Reply: The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere: "Re: Discontinued Certification"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]