Re: One language environment don't have future

[Karel Miklav <karel@inetis.spppambait.com>]

I'm starting to sound like a certain R-company promoter, but as Grady 
Booch said about objects and patterns: "no class is an island, but 
rather that all interesting, well-structured object-oriented systems 
consist of societies of classes." The point in evolution of knowledge is 
to compress it in the sense of complexity, to make it appear plain simple.

As every possible combination of assembly instructions didn't come out 
practical, people invented higher level languages. And even though that 
may not be the reason there shure is a limit in practical societies of 
classes and their tweakable parameters.

Beard, Frank Randolph CIV wrote:
> From: Karel Miklav
>>The IT tower of Babel may never be built, but UML and tools around it 
>>are a step forward. And there is a difference between modeling and 
>>coding; I guess we're not going to rewrite data structures in all sorts 
>>of languages forever? Or watch compilers #%@! us with cryptic messages? 
>>There must be evolution even in IT.
> 
> Wasn't (or isn't) that the goal of CASE tools?  Of course, the CASE tools
> would need to evolve more to go from design to implementation.
> 
> I haven't kept up with the current state of the CASE tools, but most of them
> were trying to use a graphical interface tool to draw your system on the
> screen and then produce compilable software components.
> 
> The ultimate evolution of the CASE tools would be to draw something on the
> screen and have it spit out a working executable.  I guess you would have a
> "primitive" (or base) set of components and data structures with which to
> build all others necessary for developing your target product.  The problem
> someone else eluded to was, what do you do when a new data structure is
> required which cannot be built from your primitive or composite sets?  Then
> someone has to go in with the language used to build the CASE tool and
> add the new structure(s).  Unless the CASE tool can be used to build the new
> components or data structures for itself (the Cobol compiler to build a
> Cobol compiler approach).

You're right, but there are other ways. The other day I downloaded Booch 
components for Ada; I managed to compile the examples but I don't have a 
clue what's going on. For start I would just like my tool to select and 
tweak the apropriate version of container for me. There is no tool like 
that at the moment, but with more stupid people like me, there will :)

Regards,
Karel Miklav