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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f23f789345652e5b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:10:58 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Users of the BON notation among Ada users ?
References: 
 <c06663c9-c55a-4721-8800-9d01b26902d2@d36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
 <30be5a15-ed2e-4853-b9ba-f4ff2e770aa8@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <30be5a15-ed2e-4853-b9ba-f4ff2e770aa8@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <496c84d4$0$31341$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Jan 2009 13:11:00 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 935f4614.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=\hPJ<ImEVf>lIh70@<QIE74IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9TV61TSH=0E?;9OJDO8_SK6NSZ1n^B98i:In5;D[[B<Y0
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3260
Date: 2009-01-13T13:11:00+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

sjw schrieb:
> On Jan 9, 3:38 pm, Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)
> <yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> 
>> There are some criticisms about UML, among these, one wich I share :
>> not easy to communicate with peoples with a such complex notation. BON
>> is much simpler.
> 
> A quick look suggests that BON is roughly equivalent to the subset of
> UML which brings about 90% of the value.

BON's "constraint language" was, I guess, way ahead of UML's
in many ways.
The bubble drawings OTOH come with dahsed, single and double lines
and ASCII punctuation characters used as the sole means of conveying
essential differences. Isn't this a bit too simple?

Another tool---free or else supported at a cost---
that is rooted in Software Through Pictures is OpenAmeos.
UML edition available.
It draws you into designing a program around a specification
such that the specification always stays linked to the model,
formally. This might not seem unusual but with StP it feels
like this is the natural and only way to disign a system.
The links are explicit and an integral part of the approach.
The software includes  circuitry for testing the correspondence
of spec and  model.  A thing is that StP makes me start from
use cases and very little detail; it takes long until I arrive
 at those class diagrams which so many tools seem to put in
the center.

http://www.openameos.org/
http://www.aonix.com/stp.html