Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

ieeecs-media.computer.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 170 posts

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#41

Post by jcarrico »

miffy900 wrote: post #27

So at the start of each chapter, the book has a table of abbreviations and their definitions, called 'Acronyms'. To whoever wrote or edited the book: please lookup the definition of the word 'acronym': "an abbreviation formed from the initial letters of other words and pronounced as a word (e.g. NASA)." Not all of the abbreviations listed are acronyms! Most are just plain old initialisms. Since when has anyone ever t…

From Merriam Webster:

a word (such as NATO, radar, or laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term

also : an abbreviation (such as FBI) formed from initial letters : initialism

It appears the meaning of the word has changed over time.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#43

Post by abtinf »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #35

There appears to be a lot of hate towards this in the comments (because it's not perfect?), but I feel strongly that we need explicit bodies of knowledge, along with certifications for having been trained on it. Every company I go to, the base of knowledge of all the engineers is a complete crapshoot. Most of them lack fundamental knowledge about software engineering. And they all lack fundamental knowledge about the…

> if this is supposed to be the future of work

The day computing becomes subject to professional licensure is the day the field of computing will fall into hopeless stagnation, just like every other such field.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#46

Post by epolanski »

NotGMan wrote: post #20
JanSt wrote: post #13

If you really want someone interested in software development to run away, hand them books like this one.

This was my first thought. If this ever starts to get thought in CS university courses the amount of devs would dramaticaly reduce due to trauma.

Software quality may increase though, because there's a desperate lack of solid engineering practices across the industry.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#47

Post by [deleted] »

epolanski wrote: post #37

After seeing so much negativity and controversy around this book in the comments, I'm quite convinced to giving it a read. I've seen so little "engineering" in software world, regardless of the company and how many ivy league devs it hires to be fully convinced that a work of encoding software engineering knowledge is worth the effort, and even attempts like this are valuable reads in such a gigantic vacuum, even jus…

[deleted]

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#48

Post by miffy900 »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #30
ctz wrote: post #6

Runtime errors surface when a program runs into an unexpected condition or situation such as dividing by zero, memory overflow, or addressing a wrong or unauthorized memory location or device, or when a program tries to perform an illegitimate or unauthorized operation or tries to access a library, for example. The programs must be thoroughly tested for various types of inputs (valid data sets, invalid data sets and…

What exactly is wrong with it? That is a definition fit for someone who does not have prior knowledge of what a runtime error is. It might be boring to us, and I might word it a little different, but it's fine.

For me it's the last sentence: "Once identified, runtime errors are easy to fix." Well no not really - it depends on the issue; sometimes a solution isn't 'fixing' it, sometimes choosing what to do next after identifying the root cause is it's own task. Maybe it's working around it, like amending the return value with amended data, or patching the API itself by wrapping it in an intermediate API and swallowing exceptions. Guidance on addressing runtime errors should never presuppose that 'fixing' it will be easy - it will always depend on the context. Just get rid of that last sentence and it's a better statement.

Imagine instead it's for criminal defense lawyers: re-word it to be advice for attorneys defending their client against a prosecution. "Once [all exculpatory evidence against your client] is identified, defending them against a guilty verdict is easy to do"

It sounds like it's written by someone who has never practiced in the real world.

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#49

Post by lotsoweiners »

abtinf wrote: post #43
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #35

There appears to be a lot of hate towards this in the comments (because it's not perfect?), but I feel strongly that we need explicit bodies of knowledge, along with certifications for having been trained on it. Every company I go to, the base of knowledge of all the engineers is a complete crapshoot. Most of them lack fundamental knowledge about software engineering. And they all lack fundamental knowledge about the…

> if this is supposed to be the future of work The day computing becomes subject to professional licensure is the day the field of computing will fall into hopeless stagnation, just like every other such field.

Maybe that’s not a bad thing…

Re: Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK) v4.0 is out [pdf]

#50

Post by rockemsockem »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #49
abtinf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if this is supposed to be the future of work The day computing becomes subject to professional licensure is the day the field of computing will fall into hopeless stagnation, just like every other such field.

Maybe that’s not a bad thing…

Let me hear your pro-stagnation argument
Post reply on HN