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: 103376,486d4972706e99db
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Bug rate and choice of programming language
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <544aa193-49cc-43ef-b92e-eb186d1d7288@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>
References: <9b242840-3400-4d5c-aa1e-db238701aebe@l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<3e1c5adb-a0b8-4ffd-9268-fcaa2e3ad13c@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>
	<op.vg8y581rxmjfy8@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.232.29
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1281487215 1272 127.0.0.1 (11 Aug 2010 00:40:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:40:15 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.232.29;
	posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8)
	Gecko/20100722 Firefox/3.6.8 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
	4.0.20506),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13101
Date: 2010-08-10T17:40:15-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Aug 10, 6:19=A0pm, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> I feel the last sentence (previous text was quoted for context), may be a=
 =A0
> good reason to mitigate some (bad) evaluation of UML or UML- like =A0
> representations. It seems their experience shows some graphical =A0
> representation at some level may help. This does not really advocate for =
=A0
> UML, rather for some kind of multi-dimensional representations, like =A0
> graphical representations are.

UML is, in my opinion, over-rated and over-hyped in that it tries to
do two distinct and separate things at once while not realizing/
recognizing that they are separate things: that is representing the
DESIGN of a system AND representing the FLOW of the system.

The correct solution is, again in my opinion, something that
acknowledges the two as being distinct.
As a small example consider an [OOP-]object and its associated
functions/procedures/methods; there is the HOW DOES THIS OBJECT FIT
WITH OTHER OBJECTS [IN THE PROGRAM]? question, as well as the WHAT
HAPPENS WHEN [MESSAGE]? question. Both can be represented as graphs,
but one [the method] is in actuality a flowchart. In a GUI-system this
would look like an object having methods that when you examine/double-
click/access expand into a flowchart representation for that method.
[And the converse as well, when the method/procedure/function that you
are in has locally-declared objects you should be able to "zoom-in" on
those... taking you back to the OO-view but with that particular class-
of-object as the subject; this would also be how the theoretical/
imaginary/'main'/default-task would be viewed: as a function/procedure
which declares variables & objects.]

As an interesting and perhaps-or-perhaps-not practical extension of
the previous concept would be [in systems programming] the OS viewing
a program as an object, with its own methods [perhaps memory-
management], the defaulting one being that "main" thread.