Re: UML & Ada

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Thanks for the links.

I agree that there is food value in being able to describe an overall design
in a language independent way, but I think I want something at more levels
than that.

I want a tool that lets me describe what a system has to be able to do -
that might be something UML might support in some manner (but my impression
is that it still sticks you pretty much with OOD - which rules out a lot of
other possible designs - especially ones that might already exist.) I want a
tool that describes the overall structure of the software I've built or
intend to build - a sort of overview of how the various Ada pieces hang
together. Then I might want something that allows me to describe lower-level
algorithms within subprograms/tasks.

UML's interaction diagrams - and possibly Use Cases - I find can be helpful,
but I don't see it supporting all the things I want in a design tool.
Perhaps I need to get a more thorough understanding of it to see if maybe I
can shoehorn the things I want to do into the modeling language. But it
would *still* be nice to have something that diagramatically represented all
possible Ada programs - and UML can't be made to do this any way I know of.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
news:x7v1yisk4d1.fsf@smaug.pushface.org...
>
> If you are modelling a problem domain, you likely don't want to be
> thinking about tasks. Indeed, the ideal is that your model should be
> true (useful) in a number of implementations. Analyse Navigation, say,
> and reuse in a cruise missile and a torpedo (I don't think that's
> _very_ likely ..). Change your implementation language from C++ to Ada
> but retain your model.
>