Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- details [2011/09/14 18:51] – jonathan
+++ details [2011/09/14 18:55] (current) – jonathan
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Detailed Description CSE 4090 ======
+The description below comes from the original course proposal. The details and design of the actual course in each year may differ considerably.
 ===== Short Description=====
@@ Line 53: / Line 55: @@
 . (10%) Team self-assessment of each other.
+===== Reading List =====
+The reading lists from COSC4312 and COSC4313 applies.
+  *Sommervile. Software Engineering, 8th edition, 2007, Addison-Wesley.
+  *Pressman. Software Engineering: a practitioner’s approach. McGraw Hill, 2005.
+  *Ian Bray, An Introduction to Software Requirements, Addison Wesley, 2002.
+  *Documenting Software Architectures. P. Clements et. al. Addison-Wesley 2003.
+  *Software Engineering. S.L. Pfleeger, Prentice Hall. 2001.
+  *The Unified Modeling Language Reference Guide. J. Rumbaugh, G. Booch, & I. Jacobson, Addison Wesley Longman. 1999.
+  *Design Patterns and Contracts. J.M. Jezequel et. al. Addison-Wesley 2000.
+  *Seamless Object Oriented Software and Architecture. K. Walden, and J.-M. Nerson, Prentice Hall, 1995
+  *Object Oriented Software Engineering with Eiffel. J.M. Jezequel. Addison-Wesley, 1996
+  *Facts and Fallacies of Software Engineering. Robert Glass. Addison-Wesley 2003.
+  *Lean Software Development.: an Agile Toolkit. Mary and Tom Poppendieck. Addison Wesley 2003.
+  *Software Fundamentals: Collected Papers by David Parnas. Editor David weiss. Addison Wesley 2001.
+  *Balancing Agility and Discipline. Boehm and Turner. Addison Wesley 2004.
+  *Blaha and Rumbaugh, Object Oriented modelling and Design with UML, Prentice Hall, 2005
+  *Meyer, Object Oriented Software Construction, Prentice Hall, 1997.
+  *Software Fundamentals: Collected papers by David Parnas, Collected papers of David Parnas, Addison-Wesley, 2001.
+  *Design Patterns. E. Gamma et. al. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
+===== Course Rationale =====
+The Standish Group's CHAOS research is a software industry standard tracking the results of 30,000 completed software projects since 1994. Their statistics indicate improvements since 1994 due to a variety of factors including better process management, skilled project managers, a commitment early on to firm basic requirements and formal methodologies. Even so, the results for the year 2000 indicate that only 28% of projects succeeded (on time, within budget and with the functions originally specified), 23% of projects failed (i.e. never managed to complete), and 49% of projects were “challenged” (e.g. on average 45% over budget, 63% over time, and with only 67% of the required functionality) .
+The purpose of the project course is to provide our students with a large software project that will be scrutinized for good design, correctness and quality, and that will more closely simulate the competitive industrial setting. At the same time, the academic setting will allow us to introduce best software practices. The project course is seen as the context in which all their software engineering knowledge comes to practice and fruition.
+This course complements the newly introduced courses on Software Engineering Requirements and Testing (COSC 4312 and 4313).  Knowledge obtained in these two courses will be applied in a practical setting throughout the duration of the project. This will make the rationale behind established software engineering practices apparent to our students, and will deepen their understanding of what it takes to build large software systems.