5 ms·

Looks like "How to do Waterfall" (62.5% of the test) with additional coverage of Security (15%), QA (7.5%), and Engineering process (7.5%), and Configuration Ma

Looks like "How to do Waterfall" (62.5% of the test) with additional coverage of Security (15%), QA (7.5%), and Engineering process (7.5%), and Configuration Maintenance (7.5%). There are 80 multiple-choice questions spread across 2 sessions (4 hours each). Open book. An overview of the exam: http://ncees.org/Documents/Public/Exam%20specifications/PE%20Software%20Apr%202013.pdf http://ncees.org/Documents/Public/Exam%20specifications/PE%2... Not something I'd feel inclined to get unless this somehow became an industry requirement- which is unlikely - Agile and progressive Software Dev shops are probably throwing up a little bit in their mouths at this thing. Replace Agile with "Extreme Programming" and you've got something that looks like it came straight out of the 90s.

ntkachov 14y ago
Really? Just because its structured like waterfall doesn't mean its "how to do waterfall". I read the req spec and there isn't a thing on here that isn't valuable information for every engineer no matter what process they use. Read what it actually covers and the topics they test and tell me there's something on there that is completely useless.
- eropple 14y ago
  UML, unless you live in the land of too-tight blue ties.
  - davidcuddeback 14y ago
    UML is very useful to communicate ideas and designs to the rest of your team. It doesn't have to be 100% strict UML. It just has to get the point across. I use http://www.asciiflow.com/ http://www.asciiflow.com/ to make simple UML diagrams that I add to my code when it helps clarify the code's structure. So I disagree that you have to "live in the land of too-tight blue ties" to find UML useful.
    - eropple 14y ago
      > It doesn't have to be 100% strict UML. It just has to get the point across. So, not-UML?
      - davidcuddeback 14y ago
        When you write a text message without proper punctuation or capitalization, do you say that's not English because it doesn't follow strict grammar rules? No. It's less formal English, but it's still English.
        eropple 14y ago
        Bad analogy. If I have <a><b>something</a></b> I do say it's not XML.
- spamizbad 14y ago
  Couldn't disagree more. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... I've worked in waterfall shops. Sections I through V are very similar to what we aspired to do. Look, it's not like this knowledge is worthless. It's just that what is outlined in these sections is a very thorough but expensive ($$$ and labor) and time-consuming process that that when put into practice often insulates itself from the business problem at hand. Just because it looks good on paper does not mean it will look good when you start applying it to the real world with real people. I'll say this: If you want to participate in an organization that is culturally waterfall and practices waterfall this certification will prove quite valuable. Anywhere else though, and you might give the impression you're not a good "culture fit" for the organization.
  - demian 14y ago
    But "activities" are not "phases". You are always trying to get the requirements right, the difference is that some people get them while coding, and others before even start designing.
- Morendil 14y ago
  > Really? Just because its structured like waterfall doesn't mean its "how to do waterfall". That's funny.
mangler 14y ago
Yeah, not a big waterfall (or agile, or any other pyramid scheme) fan myself, but this kind of bullshit did get a man on the Moon and then a mixture of them got some kit on Mars, and generally they are doing OK. Some of them can actually scan you or your friend's internal organs to see if they're alright too - that's not going to be php on a lamp stack. I'm guessing they are probably not moving fast and breaking things either. They may be taking it easy with your friends internal organs, just so they don't get sued by the growing legal community on HN. There's also all that bizarre software that somehow delivers you to the airport of your choice. I wonder how that happens - do they have their Agile/Waterfall/Kanban/Nonsense boards on their office walls in order to get you there?
- spamizbad 14y ago
  > Yeah, not a big waterfall (or agile, or any other pyramid scheme) fan myself, but this kind of bullshit did get a man on the Moon... Agreed on the pyramid scheme. But the challenges listed strike me as mostly hardware, physics, and non-software science/engineering related. A Waterfall-like process is probably a good fit here since failure is far more costly than project budget/time overruns. Also, didn't the Apollo guidance computer suffer several failures? ;) To me, software looks like the least-difficult part of the space program. Doesn't mean it's easy. But let's not overstate its importance. Also, most developers aren't working on mission-critical stuff. I think it's fair to apply the 80/20 rule here. > Some of them can actually scan you or your friend's internal organs to see if they're alright too - that's not going to be php on a lamp stack. I'm guessing they are probably not moving fast and breaking things either. Funny you should bring up medical equipment. Recently, a laser caught fire inside a friend-of-a-friend during a bronchoscopy. Had to put him in an induced coma (Happy ending: he pulled through). Just out of curiosity, does anyone here think there's anything inherit to either mainstream process (Agile, Waterfall) that puts direct controls in place to prevent complexity? Both talk about "Managing complexity" but very little on mitigating complexity. To me and prevention and elimination complexity is something our profession still struggles with.
wes-exp 14y ago
What would you rather see on an exam then? Is the entire notion of requirements/design/etc. not "agile" enough, or what?
- spamizbad 14y ago
  Process-agnostic (So it can be carried into any organization's culture) nuts-and-bolts approach to designing, building, and testing software. Not open book, and not 100% multiple choice. Require actual code to be written from scratch, in addition to an existing systems to be "maintained" by applying a security fix, adding a feature, or put under test.
  - Evbn 14y ago
    It would be expensive to hire all the NPC performers to administer a practical exam on large group engineering.
swalsh 14y ago
There are writers who write novels, and there are writers who write textbooks. While the end results look a lot alike. Both have covers, both have words, both convey concepts, the purpose of the books is completely different. As such, the methodology for writing the book is different. There might even be some commonalities between the two. You might do fact checking between the two... but the facts matter a lot more in a textbook, then a novel. While you actually can use the same process a group of professors use to develop a textbook to write your novel, it doesn't make sense to use the same process a novel writer might use to develop a textbook. To do so would be potentially irresponsible to the students who consume the textbook.
- aptwebapps 14y ago
  Did you reply to the correct comment? If so, that went completely over my head. Care to explain?
anthonyb 14y ago
And "Maintenance" is only 7.5%!

ntkachov 14y ago

Really? Just because its structured like waterfall doesn't mean its "how to do waterfall". I read the req spec and there isn't a thing on here that isn't valuable information for every engineer no matter what process they use. Read what it actually covers and the topics they test and tell me there's something on there that is completely useless.

eropple 14y ago
UML, unless you live in the land of too-tight blue ties.
- davidcuddeback 14y ago
  UML is very useful to communicate ideas and designs to the rest of your team. It doesn't have to be 100% strict UML. It just has to get the point across. I use http://www.asciiflow.com/ http://www.asciiflow.com/ to make simple UML diagrams that I add to my code when it helps clarify the code's structure. So I disagree that you have to "live in the land of too-tight blue ties" to find UML useful.
  - eropple 14y ago
    > It doesn't have to be 100% strict UML. It just has to get the point across. So, not-UML?
    - davidcuddeback 14y ago
      When you write a text message without proper punctuation or capitalization, do you say that's not English because it doesn't follow strict grammar rules? No. It's less formal English, but it's still English.
      - eropple 14y ago
        Bad analogy. If I have <a><b>something</a></b> I do say it's not XML.
spamizbad 14y ago
Couldn't disagree more. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... I've worked in waterfall shops. Sections I through V are very similar to what we aspired to do. Look, it's not like this knowledge is worthless. It's just that what is outlined in these sections is a very thorough but expensive ($$$ and labor) and time-consuming process that that when put into practice often insulates itself from the business problem at hand. Just because it looks good on paper does not mean it will look good when you start applying it to the real world with real people. I'll say this: If you want to participate in an organization that is culturally waterfall and practices waterfall this certification will prove quite valuable. Anywhere else though, and you might give the impression you're not a good "culture fit" for the organization.
- demian 14y ago
  But "activities" are not "phases". You are always trying to get the requirements right, the difference is that some people get them while coding, and others before even start designing.
Morendil 14y ago
> Really? Just because its structured like waterfall doesn't mean its "how to do waterfall". That's funny.

mangler 14y ago

Yeah, not a big waterfall (or agile, or any other pyramid scheme) fan myself, but this kind of bullshit did get a man on the Moon and then a mixture of them got some kit on Mars, and generally they are doing OK. Some of them can actually scan you or your friend's internal organs to see if they're alright too - that's not going to be php on a lamp stack. I'm guessing they are probably not moving fast and breaking things either. They may be taking it easy with your friends internal organs, just so they don't get sued by the growing legal community on HN. There's also all that bizarre software that somehow delivers you to the airport of your choice. I wonder how that happens - do they have their Agile/Waterfall/Kanban/Nonsense boards on their office walls in order to get you there?

spamizbad 14y ago
> Yeah, not a big waterfall (or agile, or any other pyramid scheme) fan myself, but this kind of bullshit did get a man on the Moon... Agreed on the pyramid scheme. But the challenges listed strike me as mostly hardware, physics, and non-software science/engineering related. A Waterfall-like process is probably a good fit here since failure is far more costly than project budget/time overruns. Also, didn't the Apollo guidance computer suffer several failures? ;) To me, software looks like the least-difficult part of the space program. Doesn't mean it's easy. But let's not overstate its importance. Also, most developers aren't working on mission-critical stuff. I think it's fair to apply the 80/20 rule here. > Some of them can actually scan you or your friend's internal organs to see if they're alright too - that's not going to be php on a lamp stack. I'm guessing they are probably not moving fast and breaking things either. Funny you should bring up medical equipment. Recently, a laser caught fire inside a friend-of-a-friend during a bronchoscopy. Had to put him in an induced coma (Happy ending: he pulled through). Just out of curiosity, does anyone here think there's anything inherit to either mainstream process (Agile, Waterfall) that puts direct controls in place to prevent complexity? Both talk about "Managing complexity" but very little on mitigating complexity. To me and prevention and elimination complexity is something our profession still struggles with.

wes-exp 14y ago

What would you rather see on an exam then? Is the entire notion of requirements/design/etc. not "agile" enough, or what?

spamizbad 14y ago
Process-agnostic (So it can be carried into any organization's culture) nuts-and-bolts approach to designing, building, and testing software. Not open book, and not 100% multiple choice. Require actual code to be written from scratch, in addition to an existing systems to be "maintained" by applying a security fix, adding a feature, or put under test.
- Evbn 14y ago
  It would be expensive to hire all the NPC performers to administer a practical exam on large group engineering.

swalsh 14y ago

There are writers who write novels, and there are writers who write textbooks. While the end results look a lot alike. Both have covers, both have words, both convey concepts, the purpose of the books is completely different. As such, the methodology for writing the book is different. There might even be some commonalities between the two. You might do fact checking between the two... but the facts matter a lot more in a textbook, then a novel. While you actually can use the same process a group of professors use to develop a textbook to write your novel, it doesn't make sense to use the same process a novel writer might use to develop a textbook. To do so would be potentially irresponsible to the students who consume the textbook.

aptwebapps 14y ago
Did you reply to the correct comment? If so, that went completely over my head. Care to explain?

anthonyb 14y ago

And "Maintenance" is only 7.5%!