Fighter design and software development
I borrowed the "Airplane Overall Design" of the Beihang Publishing House 2001. I don't want to use the aircraft, and I don't want to learn. It is mainly to see the editor of this book is a big name is a famous Gu Huanfen (歼 8, 歼 8-ii), only to turn over. Unexpected, I found out that I found that Shen Fei's overall design issues talked about the aircraft, and the software development issues we encountered were almost exactly the same. Look at the following paragraphs (I guess these two words is written by Gu Yuen):
"... this success (the success of Tao-1), but gives some comrades a illusion, mistakenly believes that the aircraft design is not difficult, as if the materials taught in the 1950s, this kind of thinking has been After continuing to the Cultural Revolution, even aviation colleges believe that there is no eucalyptus in the aircraft design, in order to evaluate the results, the results, a large number of teachers who engaged in aircraft design have turned to structural finite element analysis and optimization design, so since the 1980s After the aircraft design professional graduates are allocated to the Design Institute, most of them can't afford to work, after a few years of practice, they can gradually be competent. "
"On the other hand, after reform and opening up, contact foreign air developed countries, discovery that the gap between our and foreign fighters is key in functional system, especially aviation electronic fire control system. The aircraft design is no longer available in pneumatic, structural, strength and other majors. It is necessary to design a scholar, and the overall designer must understand the various systems of good fighters. Due to the continuous development of various systems, the personnel design of the system is increasingly caught in the technology development of this major, and ignored The role of this major in the overall airplane, so there is more and more problems in the face of overall designers. The aircraft design is actually a comprehensive professional contradiction, but the overall engineering of the aircraft profession.……"
The aircraft colleges saying in the previous paragraph do not pay attention to the application, only emphasis on the evaluation, evaluation results, this is not similar to the situation in most computer systems? It is said that graduates can't afford to work after graduating from graduates. After a few years of practice, I can gradually be competent, this I have too realized, most useful knowledge is not working in a job?
The latter paragraph will more explain the problem. The overall design of the aircraft is essentially a weighing and trade-off, and the overall design of the software is not so!
I have seen many programmers who want to become a system analyst or software architect, but never will recognize the importance of considering problems from all system perspectives, and do not believe in good systems are countless times and compromise. . They spend most of their time to study some kind of fashionable or favorite technology, and firmly believe that this technology can help them solve all problems.
- I don't say that this is not good, I mean, people like this to hold technology, ideal, very suitable for technical research in the project group, but absolutely not suitable for system analysts or software architects because They rarely consider the customer's opinions, users' habits, resource restrictions, market constraints, etc. Importance, when they encounter difficulties, they are rarely willing to make any concessions, "weigh" and "compromise" For them, perhaps only the vocabulary in another world.
Re-repeat: "The aircraft design is actually a confidential contradiction between the aircraft, and the overall engineering major of the aircraft." The "aircraft" in this sentence is replaced with "software", and it is also true .
