Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.modula2,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!nntp.crl.com!pacbell.com!gw2.att.com!nntpa!not-for-mail
From: dcw@guam.emspnc.att.com (dcw)
Subject: Re: Certification of Computer Scientists
Message-ID: <DE5892.3nM@nntpa.cb.att.com>
Sender: news@nntpa.cb.att.com (Netnews Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: guam.emspnc.att.com
Organization: AT&T
References: <3srsn5$q8d@galaxy.ucr.edu> <qqhh3bawo8.fsf@tartarus.ucsd.edu> <41tm9n$575@jefferson.fairfield.com> <tonyk-3008950814040001@dial1-21.cybercom.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 21:41:25 GMT
Lines: 47
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.edu:14067 comp.lang.ada:34442 comp.lang.c++:146815 comp.lang.modula2:12484 comp.lang.scheme:13602

In article <tonyk-3008950814040001@dial1-21.cybercom.net>,
Antoun Kanawati <tonyk@cybercom.net> wrote:
>
	{rest deleted}

>That's quite reasonable, but can you insure that an unlicensed programmer will
>write only word processors?  what about spreadsheets?  Spreadsheets are in
>common use in laboratories, structural analysis, and other endeavors where
>errors can easily result in individual or massive losses of life.  Besides,
>bad word processors can drive their makers out of business, thus exposing a
>number of employees to unemployment and all its inconveniences.  Isn't that
>worth a bit of extra testing?
>-- 
>Antoun (Tony) Kanawati
>tonyk@cybercom.net

Perhaps it is worth recalling the Pentium flaw here.  The Pentium flaw 
exposed the vulnerability that comes with widespread adoption of mass
standards.  What Tony seems to be saying here is that we need to certify
programmers whose product "might" be used in a life-critical applications.
Since software in the PC industry is universally adopted en masse, that means
certification for us all.

I think that is unnecessary.  It shouldn't take too much mental exertion 
to separate software that has been produced by "certified software 
professionals" from that which has been produced by others, particularly 
if the "certified" variety comes at a premium cost.  Customers can reasonably
be expected to by such "premium" software for safety-critical applications.
I suppose you could call this the "UL Listed" approach to certification.

Having said this though, it's probably worth remembering that the bottom 
line is the software, not the programmer who writes it.  Perhaps what we 
ought to be talking about certifying is the software development (includes
testing) process itself and leave the practitioners alone.


(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

David Willett               AT&T Advanced Technology Systems
                            Greensboro, NC	USA


My opinions (expressed above) are not necessarily those of AT&T

William Safire's Rules for Writers

Number one: Remember to never split an infinitive.
