Search Results

Search found 7 results on 1 pages for 'amumu'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Does software architect/designer require more skills and intellectual than software engineer (implementation)?

  - by Amumu

  So I heard the positions for designing software and writing spec for developers to implement are higher and getting paid more. I think many companies are using the Software Engineering title to depict the person to implement software, which means using tools and technologies to write the actual code. I know that in order to be a software architecture, one needs to be good at implementation in order to have an architectural overview of a system using a set of specific technologies. This is different than I thought of a Software Engineer. My thinking is similar to the standard of IEEE: A software engineer is an engineer who is capable of going from requirement analysis until the software is deployed, based on the SWEBOK (IEEE). Just look at the table of content. The IEEE even has the certificate for Software Engineering, since ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) seems to not have an official qualification test for Software Engineer (although IEEE is a member of ABET). The two certificates are CSDA and CSDP. I intend to take on these two examination in the future to be qualified as a software engineer, although I am already working as one (Junior position). On a side note on the issues of Software Engineer, you can read the dicussion here: Just a Programmer and Just a Software Engineer. The information of ABET does not accredit Software Engineer is in "Just a Software Engineer". On the other hand, why is Programmer/Softwar Engineer who writes code considered a low level position? Suppose if two people have equal skills after the same years of experience, one becomes a software architect and one keeps focus on implementation aspect of Software Engineering (of course he also has design skill to compose a system, since he's a software engineer as well, but maybe less than the specialized software architect), how comes work from Software Engineer is less complicated than the Software Architect? In order to write great code with turn design into reality, it requires far greater skill than just understanding a particular language and a framework. I don't think the ones who wrote and contributing Linux OS are lower level job and easier than conceptual design and writing spec. Can someone enlighten me?

  Read the article

• Is this how dynamic language copes with dynamic requirement?

  - by Amumu

  The question is in the title. I want to have my thinking verified by experienced people. You can add more or disregard my opinion, but give me a reason. Here is an example requirement: Suppose you are required to implement a fighting game. Initially, the game only includes fighters, who can attack each other. Each fighter can punch, kick or block incoming attacks. Fighters can have various fighting styles: Karate, Judo, Kung Fu... That's it for the simple universe of the game. In an OO like Java, it can be implemented similar to this way: abstract class Fighter { int hp, attack; void punch(Fighter otherFighter); void kick(Fighter otherFighter); void block(Figther otherFighter); }; class KarateFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation...}; class JudoFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation... }; class KungFuFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation ... }; This is fine if the game stays like this forever. But, somehow the game designers decide to change the theme of the game: instead of a simple fighting game, the game evolves to become a RPG, in which characters can not only fight but perform other activities, i.e. the character can be a priest, an accountant, a scientist etc... At this point, to make it more generic, we have to change the structure of our original design: Fighter is not used to refer to a person anymore; it refers to a profession. The specialized classes of Fighter (KaraterFighter, JudoFighter, KungFuFighter) . Now we have to create a generic class named Person. However, to adapt this change, I have to change the method signatures of the original operations: class Person { int hp, attack; List<Profession> skillSet; }; abstract class Profession {}; class Fighter extends Profession { void punch(Person otherFighter); void kick(Person otherFighter); void block(Person otherFighter); }; class KarateFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation...}; class JudoFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation... }; class KungFuFighter extends Fighter { //...implementation ... }; class Accountant extends Profession { void calculateTax(Person p) { //...implementation...}; void calculateTax(Company c) { //...implementation...}; }; //... more professions... Here are the problems: To adapt to the method changes, I have to fix the places where the changed methods are called (refactoring). Every time a new requirement is introduced, the current structural design has to be broken to adapt the changes. This leads to the first problem. Rigid structure makes it hard for code reuse. A function can only accept the predefined types, but it cannot accept future unknown types. A written function is bound to its current universe and has no way to accommodate to the new types, without modifications or rewrite from scratch. I see Java has a lot of deprecated methods. OO is an extreme case because it has inheritance to add up the complexity, but in general for statically typed language, types are very strict. In contrast, a dynamic language can handle the above case as follow: ;;fighter1 punch fighter2 (defun perform-punch (fighter1 fighter2) ...implementation... ) ;;fighter1 kick fighter2 (defun perform-kick (fighter1 fighter2) ...implementation... ) ;;fighter1 blocks attacks from fighter2 (defun perform-block (fighter1 fighter2) ...implementation... ) fighter1 and fighter2 can be anything as long as it has the required data for calculation; or methods (duck typing). You don't have to change from the type Fighter to Person. In the case of Lisp, because Lisp only has a single data structure: list, it's even easier to adapt to changes. However, other dynamic languages can have similar behaviors as well. I work primarily with static languages (mainly C and Java, but working with Java was a long time ago). I started learning Lisp and some other dynamic languages this year. I can see how it helps improving my productivity.

  Read the article

• what differs a computer scientist/software engineer to regular people who learn programming language and APIs?

  - by Amumu

  In University, we learn and reinvent the wheel a lot to truly learn the programming concepts. For example, we may learn assembly language to understand, what happens inside the box, and how the system operates, when we execute our code. This helps understanding higher level concepts deeper. For example, memory management like in C is just an abstraction of manually managed memory contents and addresses. The problem is, when we're going to work, usually productivity is required more. I could program my own containers, or string class, or date/time (using POSIX with C system call) to do the job, but then, it would take much longer time to use existing STL or Boost library, which abstract all of those thing and very easy to use. This leads to an issue, that a regular person doesn't need to get through all the low level/under the hood stuffs, who learns only one programming language and using language-related APIs. These people may eventually compete with the mainstream graduates from computer science or software engineer and call themselves programmers. At first, I don't think it's valid to call them programmers. I used to think, a real programmer needs to understand the computer deeply (but not at the electronic level). But then I changed my mind. After all, they get the job done and satisfy all the test criteria (logic, performance, security...), and in business environment, who cares if you're an expert and understand how computer works or not. You may get behind the "amateurs" if you spend to much time learning about how things work inside. It is totally valid for those people to call themselves programmers. This makes me confuse. So, after all, programming should be considered an universal skill? Does programming language and concepts matter or the problems we solve matter? For example, many C/C++ vs Java and other high level language, one of the main reason is because C/C++ features performance, as well as accessing low level facility. One of the main reason (in my opinion), is coding in C/C++ seems complex, so people feel good about it (not trolling anyone, just my observation, and my experience as well. Try to google "C hacker syndrome"). While Java on the other hand, made for simplifying programming tasks to help developers concentrate on solving their problems. Based on Java rationale, if the programing language keeps evolve, one day everyone can map their logic directly with natural language. Everyone can program. On that day, maybe real programmers are mathematicians, who could perform most complex logic (including business logic and academic logic) without worrying about installing/configuring compiler, IDEs? What's our job as a computer scientist/software engineer? To solve computer specific problems or to solve problems in general? For example, take a look at this exame: http://cm.baylor.edu/ICPCWiki/attach/Problem%20Resources/2010WorldFinalProblemSet.pdf . The example requires only basic knowledge about the programming language, but focus more on problem solving with the language. In sum, what differs a computer scientist/software engineer to regular people who learn programming language and APIs? A mathematician can be considered a programmer, if he is good enough to use programming language to implement his formula. Can we programmer do this? Probably not for most of us, since we specialize about computer, not math. An electronic engineer, who learns how to use C to program for his devices, can be considered a programmer. If the programming languages keep being simplified, may one day the software engineers, who implements business logic and create softwares, be obsolete? (Not for computer scientist though, since many of the CS topics are scientific, and science won't change, but technology will).

  Read the article

• Programming Language, Turing Completeness and Turing Machine

  - by Amumu

  A programming language is said to be Turing Completeness if it can successfully simulate a universal TM. Let's take functional programming language for example. In functional programming, function has highest priority over anything. You can pass functions around like any primitives or objects. This is called first class function. In functional programming, your function does not produce side effect i.e. output strings onto screen, change the state of variables outside of its scope. Each function has a copy of its own objects if the objects are passed from the outside, and the copied objects are returned once the function finishes its job. Each function written purely in functional style is completely independent to anything outside of it. Thus, the complexity of the overall system is reduced. This is referred as referential transparency. In functional programming, each function can have its local variables kept its values even after the function exits. This is done by the garbage collector. The value can be reused the next time the function is called again. This is called memoization. A function usually should solve only one thing. It should model only one algorithm to answer a problem. Do you think that a function in a functional language with above properties simulate a Turing Machines? Functions (= algorithms = Turing Machines) are able to be passed around as input and returned as output. TM also accepts and simulate other TMs Memoization models the set of states of a Turing Machine. The memorized variables can be used to determine states of a TM (i.e. which lines to execute, what behavior should it take in a give state ...). Also, you can use memoization to simulate your internal tape storage. In language like C/C++, when a function exits, you lose all of its internal data (unless you store it elsewhere outside of its scope). The set of symbols are the set of all strings in a programming language, which is the higher level and human-readable version of machine code (opcode) Start state is the beginning of the function. However, with memoization, start state can be determined by memoization or if you want, switch/if-else statement in imperative programming language. But then, you can't Final accepting state when the function returns a value, or rejects if an exception happens. Thus, the function (= algorithm = TM) is decidable. Otherwise, it's undecidable. I'm not sure about this. What do you think? Is my thinking true on all of this? The reason I bring function in functional programming because I think it's closer to the idea of TM. What experience with other programming languages do you have which make you feel the idea of TM and the ideas of Computer Science in general? Can you specify how you think?

  Read the article

• Pros and Cons between learning to program on Windows and Linux and Macs

  - by Amumu

  I have been studying IT for 2 years and I'm going to graduate soon in this year (if everything goes well). I think it's time for me to choose a path to specialized into some fields of this large industry. Personally, I want to be a game programmer. But to be a game programmer, surely I have to invest my time to study Windows Programming, then DirectX and other programming techniques related to game. On the other hand, Linux seems promising as well. I am not sure about Game Programming on for it, but it seems become an expert for this OS, and by expert it's not about using the OS to become an administrator, but can do further than that, such as understand the OS to its essence and can produce applications for it. However, there's some obstacles in my view for this development path. Many of my friends think that Linux is based on free and open source, and if you follow it, as its name suggested: Free and Open Source, it means we also give away our software free. Otherwise, we will have to find a second job to make living. Currently, I think a viable way to make money on Linux is doing works related to client-server. Another way to developer my career is to become expert in developing business applications for companies. This is more on business, not on specialized IT fields so I am not really interested. Another alternative is programming on mobile devices, such as iPhone, Android and it seems very promising and easier to approach. Another way is to become a computer scientist and research on academic subjects such as AI, human-computer interaction, but this is far beyond my reach, so I won't invest my time on it until I feel I am experienced enough. That's all I can think of for now. I may miss a lot of things, so I need more opinions as input to get the big picture of the industry for my career path.

  Read the article

• How well do graduates from top universities perform and how does it feel compare to the rest of the world?

  - by Amumu

  I always have impressions to those who got admitted into top Universities like MIT, Standford... for studying Engineering. I don't actually know what they are doing in the University or what they will do, but I always feel they can perform higher level tasks with more complexities. I always think that they are good at create and applying mathematical model in real life and I tend to agree: If you can't apply math, it's your problems, not math. I am a junior software engineer on embedded devices. I am learning more on Linux kernel and low level stuffs. Even so, my will is not strong enough to pursue technical path forever, with a final purpose is to create something significant on my own. May I have a chance to get on their level if I keep learning through experience and self-study? In my opinion, Math is the must have requirement, since it seems that programs on those Universities are very Math oriented. Without very strong math skill, how can one perform good in science and researching beyond making regular business products?

  Read the article

• [C++] Multiple inclusion in multiple files

  - by Amumu

  Hi everyone, I am making a small game. In BattleRecord.h: #ifndef _CHARACTER_H_ #define _CHARACTER_H_ #include "Character.h" #endif class BattleRecord { public: Character Attacker; Character Defender; Status status; int DamageDealt; int GoldEarned; int ExpGained; }; In Character.h: #ifndef _EQUIPMENT_H_ #define _EQUIPMENT_H_ #include "Equipment.h" #endif class BattleRecord; class Character { BattleRecord AttackEnemy(Character &Enemy); } In BattleRecord.h: #ifndef _CHARACTER_H_ #define _CHARACTEr_H_ #include "Character.h" #endif #ifndef _BATLE_RECORD_H_ #define _BATLE_RECORD_H_ #include "BattleRecord.h" #endif class GUI { public: //GUI Methods, and two of these: void ViewStats(Character &Player); void Report(BattleRecord Record) } The problem here is, my Character.h and BattleRecord.h need to include each other, and this definitely will cause multiple redefinition problem. Therefore, I used forward declaration in Character.h by adding: class BattleRecord; The problem is sovled. But then, the GUI.h needs BattleRecord.h again for reporting the battle, so I have to include BattleRecord.h into the GUI.h. I also have to include the Character.h in order to pass into the ViewStat function. I got error and stuck with this up to this piont.

  Read the article

1