Re: Artistically creative expression has no role in software design

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:28:06 +0200, Martin Krischik wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>> What about UML and other languages intended for solely human readers? 
>> 
>> [Amateur: Documents written in those languages are not programs?]
> 
> Well, a super duper code generator could create quite a lot of program from
> UML - and could be considered a programming language. However I have not
> seen one yet.
> 
> All UML generators I have seen generate only from the Class view. They do
> not create from the activity or state charts.
> 
> IBM's Visual Age (for Smalltalk, C++ and Java) has shown that it is possible
> to generate classes with there appropriate activity's as well.

Right, but the author emphasizes that possibility is nothing, intent and
purpose is everything:

"... While people trained in software may read the source code of computer
programs, this is done for no other purpose than to understand how the
programs work. Hence, it can be said that computer programs are only
literary works in form, whereas in substance they are technology for using
computers. Consequently, the fact that source code reads like the English
language gives the wrong impression as to its true nature."

In his logic an ability to generate code from UML just "gives the wrong
impression"...

To a certain extent he is definitely right. Information without a receiver
(purpose) is a garbage. (That's why broadcastings are so irritating (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de