hansbogert

From your post it seems you think software architecture and -engineering are the same.. In this course -- disclaimer: I was a student taking this course -- it's not that case, Software Architecture is not the sum of a program's lines or modules. SA is the methodology of getting involved and steering a project, this includes handling team efforts and other stakeholders. Looking and learning a lot of (implementation) patterns is of course very useful, but only a subpart of SA.

I tend to think that a good SArchitect knows that the patterns they might be using are good or well suited for the current problem, a better SArchitect knows that he's perhaps using a less well suited pattern for the problem, but can layout a plan to migrate to a new and better situation without breaking continuity of the project.

Furthermore, it can't be stated clearer that in the course there are a lot of guest lecturers who _do_ show different idea's.

Just a difference in semantics -- I mean, c'mon UX in a utility like top? which is probably specified in some Unix convention anyway. Pure BSD Unix do this as well in their own way.

Do you have any proof of that? "Free" memory uses as much energy as "used" memory, there is no distinction in SD|DDR-RAM. And if the OS is smart, it only has to keep a simple index of memory pages still relevant. I'd argue that this has a measurable battery-hit.

Ow c'mon Steam, you were on your way to support Linux so well -- windows only :(

Very familiar. As other suggested create some real software, use tools, apply what you've learned and go beyond.

About the "..I see here people that just don't care about the courses. ..", try to get people involved, that is the biggest hurdle throughout life I think whether it's the uni or in your later career -- get people involved in a project to see it your way and why your way is better, more importantly if you're wrong, admit it.