Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2112.12834

Software Engineering Education Knowledge Versus Industrial Needs

Georgios Liargkovas·Angeliki Papadopoulou·Zoe Kotti·Diomidis Spinellis
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Contribution: Determine and analyze the gap between software practitioners' education outlined in the 2014IEEE/ACM Software Engineering Education Knowledge (SEEK) and industrial needs pointed by Wikipedia articles referenced in Stack Overflow (SO) posts. Background: Previous work has uncovered deficiencies in the coverage of computer fundamentals, people skills, software processes, and human-computer interaction, suggesting rebalancing. Research Questions: 1) To what extent are developers' needs, in terms of Wikipedia articles referenced in SO posts, covered by the SEEK knowledge units? 2) How does the popularity of Wikipedia articles relate to their SEEK coverage? 3) What areas of computing knowledge can be better covered by the SEEK knowledge units? 4) Why are Wikipedia articles covered by the SEEK knowledge units cited on SO? Methodology: Wikipedia articles were systematically collected from SO posts. The most cited were manually mapped to the SEEK knowledge units, assessed according to their degree of coverage. Articles insufficiently covered by the SEEK were classified by hand using the 2012 ACM Computing Classification System. A sample of posts referencing sufficiently covered articles was manually analyzed. A survey was conducted on software practitioners to validate the study findings. Findings: SEEK appears to cover sufficiently computer science fundamentals, software design and mathematical concepts, but less so areas like the World Wide Web, software engineering components, and computer graphics. Developers seek advice, best practices and explanations about software topics, and code review assistance. Future SEEK models and the computing education could dive deeper in information systems, design, testing, security, and soft skills.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Georgios Liargkovas, Angeliki Papadopoulou, Zoe Kotti, Diomidis Spinellis. 2021-12-23. Software Engineering Education Knowledge Versus Industrial Needs. https://doi.org/10.1109/te.2021.3123889

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗