Re: UML (Was: Ada to C++ translator?)

[Ray Blaak <blaak@infomatch.com>]

Nick Williams <nickw@acm.org> writes:

> Ken Garlington wrote:
> Rose 98i will code generate package specifications and stubbed bodies; 
> as well as basic accessor subprograms, but it's quite clear that UML is 
> not sufficient to convey the full semantic meaning of a reverse 
> engineered program.

Nor should it be. UML is about describing software designs. The full details of
the implementation are ... in the implementation.

One would not even want to describe the full implementation in a UML model. The
level of abstraction is all wrong.

Just consider the work required to put this on some sort of UML diagram:

  for i := 1..10 loop
    Ada.Text_IO.Print(Integer'Image(i));
  end loop;

One would have to tediously draw out all sorts of nit-picky details. The
diagram won't necessarily be comprehensible either.  It is far more succinct
and understandable to simply write and/or look at the code.

The important information to put in a UML model is that which lets the reader
know what the major pieces of a system are, and how they relate. That is, the
reader leaves with a decent understanding of how to go about implementing the
system. The precise realization of the design is more properly described in the
code.

Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
blaak@infomatch.com                            The Rhythm has my soul.