----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Inherently inefficiant SPEC Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:21:41 +1000 From: Selina Dennis Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne Newsgroups: cs.254 On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Reza HAMIDI-RAVARI wrote: > > Mark as someone else already pointed out this subject already exactly > knows what they expect us to do and already have a program written up > themselves, but in the industry that is not the case they dont already > have it built up, which opens the door for some industry training maybe, > but as far as learning JAVA goes the focus in this subject shouldnt be > real world simulation and should all be black and white. > > Im still waiting for some REAL answers from the people behind the > subject to put me and a LOT of other people out of confusion... > This may be slightly off-topic, but I think you're being very judgemental regarding this project + Raj. He's gone to considerable effort to make sure we're being taught things we _need_ to know, rather than things that have just been in previous course-notes that are obsolete. In a corporate (and non-corporate) world, no High Level Specification is _EVER_ going to answer all your questions, be 100% correct, or even make sense sometimes. It's something you just have to deal with, and to succeed in a business world, you have to deal with it competently, patiently, and above all else, professionally. In order to be fair to all students, lecturers/etc have to provide new projects every single semester, in order to prevent people who are repeating the semester, or have friends in previous semesters', having an unfair advantage over students who aren't/don't. This means that coupled with having to rewrite all our lecture notes from scratch, he also had to write a spec for our project. Obviously, it WILL have errors, and is probably going to be confusing in some places. Normally, a HLR would bounce back and forth from an engineering manager to the sales/marketing department (or directly to a client) quite a few times before it's 'signed off', and it may still have errors! It's unlikely you'll ever work on a project where you haven't had to recode something because what was written in the spec, that the customer agreed to, just flat out wasn't what the customer wanted. Sure, this spec wasn't perfect, and in some places it was downright confusing, but I think your attitude is uncalled for. You should consider the difficulties in understanding this spec as a learning experience for when you enter the workforce, and gain something positive out of it, instead of just blaming the staff for not giving you a perfect spec. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Inherently inefficiant SPEC Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:15:23 +1000 From: Jeffrey Kai Chi CHAN Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne Newsgroups: cs.254 > Hi I agree with what mark and selina had said. Look, i agree the specs are bit vague in some places, but as pointed out, raj is teaching this subject for the first time, re-designing the course, and very busy. Also, it is good practice, as selina wrote, to practice making judgement calls and interpret the specs as best as you can. Not only will it put you in good stead when you work, but also in 3rd and 4th year subjects. The marking is not black and white, or should not be as far as i can tell. The test cases are there just to give an indication of what your project can do, and i highly doubt you will be penalised for displaying the functional ref in the wrong position for errors, for example. I am not the final authority on this (so please don't quote me :) ), but this is my understanding from previous project marking. Finally, all feedback is welcomed, but please don't be overly aggressive. Passive feedback is usually received better. Good luck with your projects. Jeff ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Inherently inefficiant SPEC Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:37:46 +1000 From: Reza HAMIDI-RAVARI Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne Newsgroups: cs.254 Hi Selina Firstly Im sorry if my attitude offended you or anyone here but im a bit of an upfront person, so apologies if i put anyone off. Secondly let me make it clear that i did not demand a perfect spec, since i dont think there is such thing, but there have been some frustrating answers and some questions left unanswered along the way, that have added up. I put a fair amount of work in my program and have strived to make it the best it can be, and hence the passion :) My nausiance/dissatisfaction comes from the fact that some answers have not cleared the spec sufficiently and even added to the confusion such as when we got answers like "its up to you" Thirdly i appericiate what Raj is doing here for us and understand the workload he is under, and i did not intend to be rude, whatever anyone else's perception maybe. So thumbs up to anyone in 254, im only striving to make it better, and my way of doing it is being critical 8-B Thanks for your time everyone Peace Reza. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Inherently inefficiant SPEC Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:57:57 +1000 From: Mark ANGRISH Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne Newsgroups: cs.254 eh.. i actually pushed for a 3 person project in 254 but i dont think i got any support (did i demonstrators?!). just on what reza was saying.. sure be passionate, be vocal.. just dont be frank all the time. i can tell you i have been in situations where my mouth has got me into some real shit, so use learn to channel your desires a bit mor subtely (i learnt a good saying off my 4th year supervisor: software development is 80% psychology 20% technology). actually id like to see a TQM and HR/psychology subject for the software engineering stream.. youd be surpised how self focused people can be in team environments.. oh wait.. i think they should all play team sports for 4 years instead! hehe as for the subject, take everyone elses advice and understand that this course was redeveloped, ground up, with some damn fine but overdue content. count yourself lucky.. most of my learning about this material was spent in my private time.. 254 back then was to say the least.. outdated and boring. lecture notes 1 day in advance wins hands down over getting some motivtion to learn a new technology. finally, like i have been telling people in my labs, you will not lose marks for getting 'non standard' results on automated testing. remember to mark down your assumptions in your uml diangrams (with artifacts known as notes.. look it up), or like someone els epointed out in your source code. since i may not be here much if at all.. i'll make some small recommendations for future career paths (coz thats what we all care about in the end). i guess this will be mandatory for the next 2-3 years. - take 'distributed systems' from IS and unlike the attitude shown here, actually try and understand the lecturer.. he has great material (if CS ever wake up, take their distributed systems subject instead). he has fantastic industry related material (yes the stuff employers want!). check it out. - make some time to start learning the enterprise frameworks. if you learn java, you INSTANTLY get to put MS.NET C# under your belt! but the main focus is J2EE (java.sun.com), and to some degree J2ME(phones etc). know one of them to a decent level and you have some good leverage in a tight marketplace (or .NET.. even better know both and when to apply them!). - be proactive in your learning. remember when you graduate you are competing against friends just to get a decent living! so develop a specialty in your own time in a desired industry area and know it well! cheers, ::mark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------