2010软件设计师考试（英语部分）

2010年上半年上午卷

Observe that for the programmer, as for the chef, the urgency of patron (顾客) may govern the scheduled completion of the task, but it cannot govern the actual completion. An omelette (煎鸡蛋), promised in two minutes, may appear to be progressing nicely. Butwhen it has not set in two minutes, the customer has two choices-waits or eats it raw. Software customers have had (71) $the$ $same$ choices.
Now I do not think software (72) $managers$ have less inherent courage and firmness thanchefs, northan other engineering managers. But false (73) $scheduling$ to match the patron’s desireddate is much more common in our discipline than elsewhere in engineering. It is very (74) $difficult$ to make a vigorous, plausible, and job risking defense of an estimate that is derived by no quantittive method, supported by little data, and certified chiefly by the hunches of the managers.
Clearly two solutiions are needed. We need to develop and publicize productivity figures, (75) $sharing$ such data. Until satimating is on a sounder basis, individual managers will need to stiffen their backbones and defend their estimates with the assurance that their poor hunches are better than wish derived estimates.

观察对于程序员而言，对于厨师来说，顾客的紧急程度可以控制任务的预定完成，但它不能控制实际的完成。煎鸡蛋（煎鸡蛋）在两分钟内得到承诺，似乎进展顺利。但是，当它没有在两分钟内完成时，客户有两个选择 – 等待或吃它原始。软件客户有（71）相同的选择。
现在我认为软件（72）管理者没有比其他工程经理那样固有的勇气和坚定性。但是错误的（73）调度以匹配顾客的期望日期在我们的学科中比在工程中的其他地方更常见。很难做出有力的，合理的，有工作的风险来保护估计，这种估计是通过无数量的方法得出的，只有很少的数据支持，并且主要由经理人的预感证明。
显然需要两种解决方案。我们需要开发和宣传生产力数据，（75）共享这些数据。在确定更为合理的基础上，个别管理者需要加强他们的骨干并捍卫他们的估计，并保证他们的糟糕预感比预期的估计更好。

(71)
A. no 没有
B. $thesame$ 相同
C. other 其他
D. lots of 很多
(72)
A. Testers 测试者
B. constructors 建设者
C. $managers$ 经理
D. architects 建筑师
(73)
A. Tasks 任务
B. jobs 工作
C. Works 作品
D. $scheduling$ 调度
(74)
A. easy 简单
B. $difficult$ 困难
C. simple 单一
D. painless 无痛
(75)
A. $sharing$ 分享
B. excluding 排除
C. omitting 遗漏
D. ignoring 无视

2010年下半年上午卷

People are indulging in an illusion whenever they find themselves explaining at a cocktail (鸡尾酒) party, say that they are “in computers”, or “in telecommunications”, or “in electronic funds transfer”. The implication is that they are part of the high-tech world. Just between US, they usually aren’t. The researchers who made fundamental breakthroughs in those areas are in a high-tech business. The rest of us are (71) $appliers$ of their work. We use computers and other new technology components to develop our products or to organize our affairs. Because we go about this work in teams and projects and other tightly knit working groups (紧密联系在一起的工作小组), we are mostly in the human communication business. Our successes stem from good human interactions by all participants in the effort, and our failures stem from poor human interactions.
The main reason we tend to focus on the (72) $technical$ rather than the human side of the work is not because it’s more (73) $crucial$, but because it’s easier to do. Getting the new disk drive installed is positively trivial compared to figuring out why Horace is in a blue funk (恐惧) or why Susan is dissatisfied with the company after only a few months. Human interactions are complicated and never very crisp (干脆的，干净利落的) and clean in their effects, but they matter more than any other aspect of the work.
If you find yoursef concentrating on the (74) $technology$ rather than the (75) $sociology$ , you’re like the vaudeville character (杂耍人物) who loses his keys on a dark street and looks for them on the adjacent street because, as he explains, “The light is better there！”.

每当他们发现自己在鸡尾酒会上说话时，人们就会沉迷于幻想，说他们是“在电脑中”，“在电信中”，或“在电子资金转移中”。这意味着他们是高科技世界的一部分。就在美国之间，他们通常不是。在这些领域取得重大突破的研究人员正在从事高科技业务。我们其余的人都是（71）他们工作的应用者。我们使用计算机和其他新技术组件来开发我们的产品或组织我们的事务。因为我们在团队和项目以及其他紧密联系的工作小组中开展这项工作，所以我们主要从事人类交流业务。我们的成功源于努力中所有参与者的良好人际互动，而我们的失败源于人类互动不良。
我们倾向于关注（72）技术而不是人类工作的主要原因并不是因为它更重要（73），而是因为它更容易做到。安装新的磁盘驱动器是非常重要的，相比之下，找出为什么Horace处于蓝色恐惧之中，或者为什么苏珊在几个月后对公司不满意。人与人之间的相互作用是复杂的，而且从来都不是很清晰（干脆利落），而且它们的效果很干净，但它们比作品的任何其他方面都重要。
如果你发现yoursef专注于（74）技术而不是（75） 会学，你就像杂耍人物（杂耍人物）在黑暗的街道上丢失他的钥匙并在邻近的街道上寻找他们因为，因为他解释说，“那里的光更好！”。