Re: Communications of ACM: Sir, Please Step Away from the ASR-33!

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> If UML notation captures much of your model with guaranteed 1:1
> correspondence of UML notation and Ada notation (e.g.  template based
> correspondence, or Eiffel IDE style correspondence with BON notation,
> ...), it will be possible to use _any_ UML tool, thus leaving a
> choice, and reducing insulation.

If you do this, why bother with the UML tool at all? (unless all you
want is lots and lots of pretty diagrams to show the boss).

I strongly believe that the UML model should say what's appropriate at
its level, and that the code whould be generated from the model using
rules appropriate to the target environment.

That makes for two sorts of engineer on the project: the ones who look
after the application, and the ones who look after the mechanisms (what
Shlaer-Mellor call the Software Architecture).

It also means that the application team has to tell the architecure team
what the architecture must do (is the system dynamic? what performance
and timeliness requirements are there? ...) and, in the other direction,
the architecture team has to tell the application team what model
constructs to use to get the translator to behave as needed.