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: 103376,57c80c1c1b1f8820
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Matteo Bordin <matteo.bordin@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: 
 =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_Comparison_=3A_Ada_and_UML_=28comparison=85_indeed=29?=
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 08:27:08 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <6e65c90c-c1a5-4ec8-ac00-6640395b414d@o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.vlffz7vwule2fv@garhos> <m2hbg225w8.fsf@pushface.org>
 <op.vlfkkwbzule2fv@garhos> <op.vlfl1pbc0k3wt7@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <iajhgm$kpd$4@news.eternal-september.org> <op.vlfsvmolule2fv@garhos>
 <cb355921-a6e7-42ad-a31d-78d553c831fb@z9g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
 <m2vd46w9i2.fsf@pushface.org>
 <88f637f8-e39d-420f-b4d1-63a3588a8fcc@40g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
 <m2r5esx3vp.fsf@pushface.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.98.77.125
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1289579229 25246 127.0.0.1 (12 Nov 2010 16:27:09
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:27:09 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.98.77.125;
 posting-account=0fK-ZgoAAACswzEJSZ3LA9AZ4FnRU7mX
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.12)
 Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15445
Date: 2010-11-12T08:27:08-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> >> There has to be some sort of profile (both in allowable UML constructs
> >> and what they mean in terms of program execution). "If you model like
> >> _this_ and generate code using _our generator_, the result will work
> >> like _that_".
>
> > Sure, but this way you may risk to model your application based on a
> > precise code generation strategy, possibly loosing portability and
> > platform-independence of models.
>
> Even a PIM has to have pretty precise semantics. I suppose I should have
> said, "If you model like _this_ and generate code using _our
> *standard-conformng* generator_, the result will work like _that_".
>
> If that's not so, the platform-independence isn't worth much.

Right: model semantics shall not be dependent on the code generator
otherwise model-based verification results may not be valid anymore if
you change code generator.

Example: HRT-HOOD (an extension of HOOD 3.1 for real-time systems) was
conceived as a language/method to design *Ada* systems - i.e. its
dynamic semantics was defined in terms of Ada constructs. The language/
method and its mapping to Ada were in fact inseparable. Now, suppose
you perform some kind of real-time analysis on your HRT-HOOD model: is
it still valid if you change code generator and/or target language?
Possibly not, meaning that you may need to update your model-based
verification tool to cope with your new code generator. This is the
main risk of coupling modeling language semantics with code gen
strategy.

The dynamic semantics of HRT-UML/RCM, the successor of HRT-UML, was
based on the abstract notion of Ravenscar Computational Model in the
hope that the model-based real-time analysis would be independent of
the code generator - of course assuming the code generator was able to
generate code conforming to the HRT-UML/RCM semantics.