home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.programming
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!think.com!cass.ma02.bull.com!ladcgw.ladc.bull.com!desint!geoff
- From: geoff@ITcorp.com (Geoff Kuenning)
- Subject: Re: Teaching by Value (was Re: Teaching the Basics)
- Message-ID: <1992Aug26.105222.8034@ITcorp.com>
- Organization: Interrupt Technology Corporation, Manhattan Beach, CA
- References: <1992Aug19.135744.14889@husc13.harvard.edu> <1992Aug19.142513.14893@husc13.harvard.edu> <9208241338.AA01262@golf.visix.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 10:52:22 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <9208241338.AA01262@golf.visix.com> eric@golf (Eric
- Wiseblatt) writes:
-
- > I dont like the idea of a "Maintainability" grade. Rather, I think
- > the labs with the course should be planned to *excersize the need
- > for* maintainability. I think learning to write maintainable code
- > comes more from hindsight experience with your own and other
- > people's code than upfront with the original assignment. Especially
- > in a beginning type of course with simple assignments.
-
- I agree most strongly. A couple of years ago, I was the TA for a
- software engineering course in which the prof assigned a group-written
- project for which he deliberately changed the specs as the course went
- along. Being a fair sort of guy, he made a point of announcing up
- front that he was going to do this. Nevertheless, when evaluation
- time came, a number of students complained about the capriciousness of
- the spec changes. Boy, are they going to be annoyed when they get a
- job and find out what *real* customers are like! (BTW, the most
- talented students took the warning to heart and had little trouble
- keeping up with things.)
- --
- Geoff Kuenning geoff@ITcorp.com uunet!desint!geoff
-