From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1993 15:25 EDT
From: SAHARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU
Subject: General Electric's OMTool plus comments
Message-ID: <9304161933.AA25531@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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).

---