Software Engineering Education

Instructor Xin's blog here: http://www.cnblogs.com/xinz/archive/2012/01/08/2316717.html

I don't quite agree with Mr. Yan Xin's point of view. For a college student, thinking is far more important than practical experience. I once said that the simplest thing in the world is learning, because learning is mechanical: I keep coding, typing will be fast, and I will be more familiar with syntax; I keep reading technical materials, so I will definitely know more about the technology. At the same time, the most difficult thing in the world is the ideological realm, which can be achieved without mechanical exercises.

There is such a story in one of my blogs (http://www.wanganran.com/blog/2012/04/%E7%89%87%E8%AF%AD.html) that I see from another article in cnblogs:

Many years ago, when I was a young man, I liked playing chess. In school, I could basically win. I could always win. I couldn't win either. I can't explain it, and I am too lazy to practice it.

Later, I had a spare time in school. A teacher from the provincial Chess Association organized a chess lesson. I went late and only listened for half a day. The general meaning is that, when playing chess, you need to talk about the "social view" and "strategy", such as the five strategies of the central bureau, if a game is killed or fails to be killed, it is superior. If the game is not dominant, it takes the lead. If it does not take the lead, it takes more than one child. If it does not take more than one child, it will sum up. What other gunshots are there, the trojan horse, and the home of the bureau. I didn't talk about how to play chess, nor did I play chess or play chess in the classroom.

I didn't take it seriously, and I rarely played chess afterwards.

After many years, after graduation, I got together and had nothing to worry about. I made two orders with one student. At the beginning, he asked me if I had played chess in the past two years. I said no. He ridiculed me and said, "If you didn't win me before, you won't win today ". I agree with each other with a smile. It's just a play. Why bother.

However, as soon as the game was opened, he was dumpfounded and had been in a bad position, and he had to lose in every game. He was surprised, and I was surprised. After that, I thought about it seriously and thought that the chess lesson affected me. People have almost the same thinking and computing abilities, and different ways of thinking make the results quite different. He saw the game, and I saw the game ". It is not chess that decides the victory or defeat.

After a few years, I am no longer young, but I am still young. One time I was playing with a friend, and one of his friends was also there. After dinner, I had nothing to do. I happened to have a pair of chess games, so I had a few games with his friends. They are older than me and are in their thirds. However, I did not think that the level is quite good. I had two victories in three games, and I was quite self-satisfied.

After he left, my friend asked me, "How is his level ?" I took some "Modesty" and said to myself: "He is very good. I almost lost. Fortunately, I have two victories in three games, but I have a slight victory ."

After hearing this, my friend laughed: "Do you know what he did? He sells insurance. Anyone who sells insurance may be his potential customers. He will naturally not win you, not only win you, but also win your face. This is the master. He used to be at the Chess Association. Playing chess is called Niu x dead ."

After hearing this, I am so ashamed. I am concerned with "board games". What people care about is beyond the board. Different eyes, different views, and different control points. winning or losing is not important. What matters is winning or losing, which is more beneficial to you, then there is "How to Lose" and "how to win ". Chess is just a piece. It is not chess that determines success or failure.

Although it is a story that is not relevant to software engineering, it can also clearly reflect that it is not only his talent, hard work, luck, but also his way of thinking that decides a person's business, his ideological hierarchy.

The same is true for computers. I am a grassroots programmer: I started to learn programming from the start of junior high school in vb and c # language. By the time I was in freshman year, I was able to write some small programs. At that time, I felt very remarkable. This is the first exercise in "learning and learning.

However, only when I learned some basic principles about computer operation through the high school informatics ocai system did I find out the so-called exercises that I used to do, it uses methods that almost completely violate computer operations. Although the interface is beautiful and the operation is still smooth, the efficiency and code style are not good.

If you are studying at the university stage, the University will lose its role-to pass on ideas. Courses such as C ++, assembly language, Web Front-end, and mobile development can be learned mechanically without affecting other subjects. They should not be arranged in universities. On the contrary, courses on the nature of computing need to be added. MIT once used Scheme as the first computer language for computer students, and used "construction and interpretation of computer programs" as a textbook. Now it seems that it has become Python and I think it is worth learning. At the same time, computer science is different from software engineering. Software Engineering is specially designed for the industry, but there is still Science in Computer Science and Technology. Therefore, courses such as mathematical analysis and probability theory still need to be required. They are very important in the field of scientific research.

Of course, the university courses in China now need to be improved, especially Beijing airlines. There are many mechanical courses and many required courses that are irrelevant to the major and may not be used for a lifetime. In the year, we had to write a Physical Experiment Report, back Chinese texts, and back the introduction to aerospace and aerospace, this is undoubtedly a waste of time (maybe they are useful, but they should not be in a required course of University ). In our freshman year, we had an introduction to computer science. This course spoke very well. I think it is very necessary, and the key is that this course does not take tests, you only need to submit one article.

This involves another problem, that is, the University's performance point policy. Why do we think junior and senior high schools are so beautiful? Although the university makes us more free, there is a strong force that involves us, that is, the performance point. If junior and senior high schools are so-called exam-oriented education, the University is more exam-oriented education. Only by making achievements can we have a future. This tells us that only dead books and endorsements can have a future. Although there are large assignments and other open examinations, This is a minority after all. This makes the "learning and learning" method more unfeasible-how to assess? Based on the amount of code? Based on the number of users? It's not reliable. I still have to pass the test, so I still have to "Learn and learn ".

All in all, first, I think a university should play its due role, not just a technical school. Second, the University should not be a paradise for another high school or exam-oriented educator, but a cradle of free and open ideas.