Re: Comparison : Ada and UML (comparison… indeed)

[Matteo Bordin <matteo.bordin@gmail.com>]

On Oct 31, 12:00 pm, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:47:46 +0100, J-P. Rosen <ro...@adalog.fr> a écrit:
>
> >> UML on the other hand is a meta-language, so nobody stops you from
> >> expressing a HOOD design in UML notation with the appropriate  
> >> stereotypes.
>
> > True. The STOOD tool (restricted version freely downloadable) can
> > represent your design with traditional HOOD diagrams or UML diagrams.
>
> Elydis Softwarehttp://www.ellidiss.com/products.asp
> There is indeed a download page herehttp://www.ellidiss.com/downloads.asp
> but no mention of any trial version. Will register anyway.
>
> They seems involved in the aforementioned HRT-UML by the way (see first  
> link).
>

I personally don't see much sense in trying to semantically merge the
HOOD modeling approach (based on the notion of static "class"
instance) with the UML one (based on the dichotomy between classifiers
[classes] and typed elements [objects and class members]). Decorating
a UML class with an <<HOOD_Active_Object>> stereotype (or whatever)
does not mean much: a UML class needs to be instantiated to have a run-
time executable semantics, while a HOOD object doesn't. This
inconsistency has a lot of repercussions on several model elements and
on several levels.

Of course, you can always come up with a GUI intelligent enough to
hide the semantic inconsistency between the two languages, but the
underlying UML model (supposing models are serialized to UML and not
to proprietary formats) will still contain such inconsistencies -
forcing you to have dedicated model validator, analysis tools and code
generators.