This article intends to be a survey of Meyer's unique theory and practice in software education.

• About Bertrand Meyer
  Academia/university and industry
• Development of Meyer's Software education theory
  • [Meyer1993] B. Meyer. Towards an object-oriented curriculum inverted curriculum was proposed
  • [Meyer1997] B. Meyer. Object-Oriented Software Construction more details in software education (in a dedicated chapter)
  • [Meyer2001] B. Meyer, "Software Engineering in the Academy" presented "a broad perspective on software education, argued a software curriculum should maintain a balance between the conceptual and the operational -- the principles and techniques"
• "The Inverted Curriculum in Practice": the introductory programming course
  • [Meyer2006] B. Meyer. Touch of class
    The text book (Touch of Class)
    The support software (Eiffel language and library, EiffelStudio and Traffic)
  • [Pedroni2006], "The Inverted Curriculum in Practice" in practice and results analysis

This article is based on Parnas' article 'Software Engineering Programmes are not Computer Science Programmes'.

• About David Parnas
• Science vs Engineering
  • Software products and software engineers
  • Science education and engineering education
  • Scientists and engineers
• Software engineers and software engineering education
  • What software engineers do
  • Principles of software engineering programme
  • Software engineering and computer science
• A software engineering curriculum

This article gives a comparison between Meyer's and Parnas' software education thoughts, as well as some notes based on personal background and experience.

• A comparison of Meyer's and Parnas' education philosophy
  • Engineering: Both point out the engineering nature of software systems/products
  • Curriculum: Both emphasize the importance of fundamental, long lasting concepts
  • Teaching style: Both agree that the teaching style should be "applying the theory to practice" naturally demonstrated in Meyer's inverted curriculum)
  • Teachers:Teachers should
    • have sound knowledge of the fundamental concepts,
    • know how to build software systems/products, and
    • be enthusiastic on teaching and paedogogy
    (demonstrated by Meyer and Parnas themselves).
  • The major differences are on some courses:
    • Parnas: No to the denotational semantics of programming languages, yes to basic engineering courses.
    • Meyer: Yes to basics of denotational semantics, reservation on some engineering courses like engineering materials.
  • Notes based on personal background and experience:
    • A computer science student but in an engineering department and with a more engineering-oriented curriculum.
    • worked mainly as a software engineer in a variety of application areas
    • generally advocate all principles proposed by Meyer and Parnas, but more inclined to Meyer's views on 'denotational semantics' based on personal experience in some projects.

This article gives a review of a discussion/argument thread between Clemens Szyperski and Bertrand Meyer on column "Beyond Objects" in the Software Development Magazine.

• Component Definition
  • Oct 1999 Clemens Szyperski: Greetings from DLL Hell
  • Nov 1999 Bertrand Meyer: The Significance of Components
  • Feb 2000 Clemens Szyperski: Point, Counterpoint
  • Mar 2000 Bertrand Meyer: What to compose
• Components and Contracts
  • May 2000 Clemens Szyperski: Components and Contracts
  • Jul 2000 Bertrand Meyer: Contracts for Components
  • Oct 2000 Clemens Szyperski: Components and Architecture
• Components and Services
  • Aug 2001 Clemens Szyperski: Components and Web Services
  • Oct 2001 Bertrand Meyer: Product or Service
  • Jan 2002 Clemens Szyperski: Services Rendered
• Component Architecture
  • Aug 2002 Clemens Szyperski: Universe of Composition
  • Sep 2002 Clemens Szyperski: Back to Universe