Google Mail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion software engineering
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Follow-up To:
Add Cc | Add Follow-up to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers that you hear
 
Forrest Bennett  
View profile   Translate to Translated (View Original)
 More options 12 Apr 2008, 16:40
From: Forrest Bennett <forrest.syntie...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 08:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sat 12 Apr 2008 16:40
Subject: software engineering
(I had a local group of software engineers read the tutorial that
overlaps with the book.) They were more interested in evolving actual
code than in doing engineering design problems with simulators, or
doing optimization, data modeling, science problems, etc.

We talked a lot about the limits of GP for doing traditional software
engineering: writing end user applications, server applications, large
systems, normal programming languages, etc. I pointed them to what I
could find on applications of GP to software testing, auto
parallelization, evolving oo programs, evolving data structures,
refactoring, estimation, re-engineering, etc. But was hard pressed to
think of the largest, or most complex, most high level language,
example of actually evolving code.

They were very interested in the use of high level languages, higher
level primitives (both in terms of higher level types, and in terms of
higher level functionality), object oriented languages, strong typing,
and that sort of thing.

Since many (most?) programmers write code that has a user interface,
it might be good to have a section dealing with the difficulty of
using GP for that sort of thing.

I wonder if it might be fair to just clearly state that at present, GP
is more of a problem solving technique than a technique of general
automatic programming *in the sense that a software engineer thinks of
programming*? I may be wrong; I haven't kept up much for the past 8
years.

Forrest


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google