From: SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU
Subject: General Electric's OMTool plus comments
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:25 EDT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9304161933.AA25531@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> (raw)
4/16/93
To: Info-Ada and NCOSE (National Council on Systems Engineering) BB
From: SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU Sam Harbaugh
Today I received via US Mail a one sheet glossy advertisement for
General Electric's OMTool. Last September I called them about this
after seeing mention of it in Rumbaugh et al book "Object-Oriented
modeling and Design". At that time it was $2500.00 for the Sun Sparc
station.
Quoting from today's advertisement:
OMTool is a powerful graphical tool for the high-level analysis and
design of systems and software using Object-Oriented concepts.
o Full Object Model Notation Support
o Export Capabilities for Analysis & Modules
o Powerful Graphical Capabilities
o Support for Dynamic and Functional Model Drawing Capability
o Textual & Graphical Views of Design Documentation
o C++ Code Generation
o Multi-Platform Support
call 1 800 438-7276
end quote
My comments:
1. Note that this tool is intended for "systems AND software". I see
this as a definite trend. I see different tools for different system
design paradigms. OMTool is for OO and I have discussed one for state
machine systems design that I'm not free to openly discuss.
2. Note that the OMTool generates C++, not Ada. I asked about Ada
code generation last September and was told "Ada later" according to
my notes. Today I was told "Ada not on priority list", "most people
want C++", "even Government people using C++".
3. I was told today that code generation is from the object model
only at this time.
4. I recall discussing with Grady Booch many years ago how Ada would
someday be the portability layer between design tools and language
compilers. A set of design tools would generate Ada and a set of
compiler/runtime systems would compile and execute that code on a
variety of platforms. I believe that was before C++ was defined.
I am getting the feeling that the momentum of C++ as a portability
language has built steadily and that Ada has two strikes against it.
Strike 1: Product managers will be very hesitant to put money into
new development in Ada 83 because it will be replaced by Ada 9X.
Strike 2: Ada9X with its (anticipated) competitive OO features will
not be a reality for a while. During this "time gap" C++ products
grow more mature and the language more accepted.
[note for foreign readers: "strike 1..2" is a baseball metaphor. Upon
earning strike 3 the batter is "out".]
Tell me it isn't so! Continuing the metaphor; Tell me that Ada 9X
will hit a home run and save the team. Tell me that I don't have to
learn C++ (especially the C part).
---
next reply other threads:[~1993-04-16 19:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1993-04-16 19:25 SAHARBAUGH [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1993-04-27 0:17 General Electric's OMTool plus comments John Goodsen
1993-04-28 12:30 cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwi
1993-04-29 14:08 John Goodsen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox