Performance lies my professor told me: the case for teaching Software Performance Engineering to undergraduates

ABSTRACT

In this paper we report a survey examining the approach to performance and software engineering in courses at highly ranked computer science schools in the United States. An analysis of the survey shows serious shortcomings including inadequate or missing definitions of performance, reactive "fix it later" mentality, vague performance requirements, and a general lack of awareness of the practices developed by the Software Performance Engineering (SPE) community. The survey is followed by guidelines for teaching SPE to undergraduates based on a semester long course we have developed. It is our plan to incorporate these guidelines into the curriculum of our senior capstone software engineering course.

REFERENCES

• 1: G. Amdahl. Validity of the single-processor approach to achieving large scale computing capabilities. In Proceedings of AFIPS Conference, pages 483--485, 1967.
• 2: Anonymous. Cs399 software performance engineering. Mid-semester course evaluation Stonehill College, March 2003.
• 3: Kent Beck, Extreme programming explained: embrace change, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1999
• 4: J. Boyd. Seafood auction fights back: User confidence returns slowly after glitch. Internet Week, page 19, July 2001.
• 5: Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., The mythical man-month (anniversary ed.), Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1995
• 6: M. Bumatay and M. Heineman. Broadband usage climbs 59% while narroband usage declines. Neilsen/Netratings News Release January 15, 2003. http://www. nielsen-netratings, com.
• 7: R. E. Byrant and M. Y. Vardi. Taulbee survey. Computer Research News, 14(2):4--11, March 2002.
• 8: M. Chrissis, B. Curtis, and M. Paulk. Capability maturity model for software, version 1.1. Technical Report 24, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, February 1993 1993.
• 9: Alistair Cockburn, Agile software development, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2002
• 10: R. Dezember. Campus tour is just a click away --- more students winnow lists of possible colleges after traveling the internet. Wall Street Journal, page D2, October 2002.
• 11: Robert F. Dugan, Jr. , Ephraim P. Glinert , Ali Shokoufandeh, The Sisyphus database retrieval software performance antipattern, Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Software and performance, July 24-26, 2002, Rome, Italy [doi>10.1145/584369.584372]
• 12: D. Garlan. 17-655-A: Architectures for Software Systems. Carnegie-Mellon University, Spring 2002. http://www-2. cs. cmu. edu/afs/cs, cmu.edu/academic/class/17655-s02/www/.
• 13: A. Johnson and M. Menard. General dynamics: Software engineering in the workplace. Stonehill college department of computer science seminar, General Dynamics, Easton, MA, March 2003.
• 14: M. H. Klein. State of the practice report: Problems in the practice of performance engineering. Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-TR-020, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, February 1996.
• 15: Donald E. Knuth, Structured Programming with go to Statements, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.6 n.4, p.261-301, Dec. 1974 [doi>10.1145/356635.356640]
• 16: K. Leonard. Spe project one. Project report, CS399 Software Performance Engineering, Department of Computer Science, Stonehill College, Spring 2003.
• 17: J. Loewen. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. Touchstone Books, Berkeley, California, 1996.
• 18: J. T. McKenna and R. F. Dugan. The superficial algorithimitis, blind spot, and memory vs. cpu software performance antipatterns. In Poster Session: Eighth Annual Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges Northeastern Conference, Rhode Island College, April 25--26, 2003, Rhode Island College, Providence, Rhode Island, April 2003.
• 19: F. Morgan. Integrated Postsecondary Education Completions Data Files (IPEDS). National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003. http://nces. ed. gov/Ipeds/completions.asp.
• 20: N. Parlante. CS108 Object Oriented Design: Java Implementation and Performance Lecture. Stanford University, Winter 2003. http://www. stanford, edu/class/cs 108/handouts.
• 21: Andreas Schmietendorf , André Scholz , Claus Rautenstrauch, Evaluating the performance engineering process, Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, p.89-95, September 2000, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/350391.350413]
• 22: Ben Shneiderman, Response time and display rate in human performance with computers, ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), v.16 n.3, p.265-285, Sept. 1984 [doi>10.1145/2514.2517]
• 23: C. U. Smith. Software performance engineering. In Proceedings of Computer Measurement Group International Conference XIII, pages 5--14, New Orleans, Louisianna, December 1981. Computer Measurement Group.
• 24: Connie U. Smith , Lloyd G. Williams, Software performance antipatterns, Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on Software and performance, p.127-136, September 2000, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/350391.350420]
• 25: C. U. Smith and L. G. Williams. Performance Solutions: A Practical Guide to Creating Responsive, Scalable Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 2001.
• 26: Ian Sommerville, Software engineering (6th ed.), Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2001

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.4 INFORMATION SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS
      H.4.m Miscellaneous

Keywords:
education, performance, software engineering