From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f23f789345652e5b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Britt Snodgrass <britt.snodgrass@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Users of the BON notation among Ada users ?
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:25:30 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <0e67d712-c126-478f-b1bc-d2d22ae66952@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <c06663c9-c55a-4721-8800-9d01b26902d2@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.175.225.24
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1231784730 20193 127.0.0.1 (12 Jan 2009 18:25:30
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:25:30 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=205.175.225.24;
	posting-account=rdRzuwoAAAAyW3CSBhs_xgfCUJSc1aNt
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
	Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) ; InfoPath.1; .NET
	CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 secproxy04.rockwellcollins.com:8080 (IWSS)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4214
Date: 2009-01-12T10:25:30-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I had never heard of BON before your post.  I doubt I would ever try
it unless it somehow becomes widely used.

I have used UML to develop an Ada design, in the context of the
Rhapsody UML modeling tool from Telelogic.  While this tool is very
good in most respects, UML models are awkward to use with Ada due to
terminology differences and the fact that many Ada semantic concepts
can't be easily expressed within the limits of UML 2.x.  Trying to
generate good Ada code by tweaking a UML model is a rather inefficient
way to work.

I think UML has some good features, and is useful to support the
design of an integrated system, including hardware and ASIC aspects.
To better support Ada software, UML needs a *standard* Ada specific
"profile" to customise the terminology and extend the semantics (i.e.
an "AdaML" variant of UML along the lines of the "SysML" variant that
was developed to support whole system design).

- Britt