RE: One language environment don't have future

["Beard, Frank Randolph CIV" <frank.beard@navy.mil>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Karel Miklav [mailto:karel@inetis.spppambait.com]

> 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).

Just thinking out loud.

Frank