Rating: 
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I gave up on this book when I reached the extended example of object-oriented analysis, design and implementation. The analysis was ok; the design dropped a few elements without explanation, but was largely coherent.The implementation was a nightmare. It looked like procedural C++, with practically no relationship to the analysis and design. I think the book does a good job of conveying the time-tested key concepts behind software engineering. It should not be taken seriously as a discussion of object-oriented methodology.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: I gave up on this book when I reached the extended example of object-oriented analysis, design and implementation. The analysis was ok; the design dropped a few elements without explanation, but was largely coherent. The implementation was a nightmare. It looked like procedural C++, with practically no relationship to the analysis and design. I think the book does a good job of conveying the time-tested key concepts behind software engineering. It should not be taken seriously as a discussion of object-oriented methodology.
Rating: 
Summary: Good reference material
Review: I had to buy this for my software engineering course at school, and I have found it very useful in explaining software design models and reqs and spec documentation. What I didn't expect were great anecdotes and the chapters on coding practices improved my code-writing skills more than any other source.
I also like the fact that the author strayed away from language-specifics, relying more on the theory and design than the actual impementation.
Rating:
Summary: Great software engineering book, not aimed at programming
Review: I took Professor Schach's course with the last edition of this book two years ago, and it has been very useful for me now that I work at a big corporation. It is a common misconception to think of it as a UML or OOP programming book, because many people confuse software engineering with the areas of software development and programming. They are quite different. This book is best aimed at programmers that want to understand the processes that exist for writing well-planned code in a large organizations. Think of this book as focusing on the overarching _process_ of writing software. This is especially important from the perspective of a project leader or a manager in a software company. It also offers important business perspectives for software development that you should be aware of. If you want to understand why your customers are unhappy with your results, why things are over budget, or why your project keeps missing deadlines, for example. There's alot more in there as well. I really liked it, and Schach knows what he's doing. He owns a software consulting company if I remember correctly.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the best book that I have read
Review: It is one of the best book that i have read :)
Rating:
Summary: Over Priced
Review: My criticism of the book is not with its content. The content is fine for a text book. My criticism is on the price: $$?! The information is basic software engineering material found in numerous sources. The fundamentals that students need can be found in other texts just as well written and significantly more economical. If you are an instructor you may want to look at Pfleeger or even the Systems Analysis and Design book in the Cashman series. Again, this is a respectable reference and text book - the price is too much to ask of students though!
Rating:
Summary: Over Priced
Review: My criticism of the book is not with its content. The content is fine for a text book. My criticism is on the price: $$?! The information is basic software engineering material found in numerous sources. The fundamentals that students need can be found in other texts just as well written and significantly more economical. If you are an instructor you may want to look at Pfleeger or even the Systems Analysis and Design book in the Cashman series. Again, this is a respectable reference and text book - the price is too much to ask of students though!
Rating: 
Summary: Prescriptive book on traditional software engineering
Review: Schach's Object-Oriented and Classical Software Engineering is a textbook in the traditional sense of the word. The book is divided into two parts. The first part, Introduction to Software Engineering, deals with software life-cycle models, teams, software engineering tools, and a few other general topics. The second part, The Phases of the Software Life Cycle, then takes a more detailed look at requirements, design, implementation, and so forth. The book has undergone a number of revisions during its lifetime, and it shows. Schach discusses both structured and object-oriented methods, but the coverage isn't unified enough; the book feels like a quickly-made patch. I also wish that iterative development and agile methods had received more attention. To make matters worse, Schach's writing style doesn't impress me much. Ineffective passive constructions abound and modifiers always are put before the verb, even if the sentence contains a modal verb or the verb is be. This actually gets annoying after a while! What's more, Scach's approach is very, very prescriptive, and at least I frequently found myself objecting vehemently to the advice presented. It's sad that to my knowledge there are no really good general books on software engineering. Sommerville's book suffers from the exact same defects as Schach's. Can a software engineering book not be made accurate, thought-provoking, and fun to read?
Rating:
Summary: Apology to author
Review: Suggesting that the author only tacked on UML and C++ to make more money is a little misguided. I dont think the book delivers what it promises - C++ and UML - but implying the author (a college professor) did something for money was a little dumb.
Rating:
Summary: Apology to author
Review: Suggesting that the author only tacked on UML and C++ to make more money is a little misguided. I dont think the book delivers what it promises - C++ and UML - but implying the author (a college professor) did something for money was a little dumb.
| 
