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

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:11:35 +0100, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> a  
écrit:

> "Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>
>> Back to a famous topic of OO with Ada vs OO with other languages; just
>> that here, let's replace “other languages” by UML.
>
> I've just looked at the UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification 05-07-04,
> and in section 7.3.6, Operation, under Semantics (on page 117 of 709!)
You're brave

> it says
>
>   "An operation may be redefined in a specialization of the featured
>   classifier. This redefinition may specialize the types of the owned
>   parameters, add new preconditions or postconditions, add new raised
>   exceptions, or otherwise refine the specification of the operation."

“Owned parameters” it says so, and the receiver is not part of owned  
parameters. So the flaw is unavoidable. I'm afraid many other flaw are  
hidden the same way (at least, this does not witness for something good).

Does HOOD include diagrams for State Machines, Collaborations and  
Scenarios ? That is mainly what is of interest to me in UML (that is not  
just for class diagrams which does not offer anything useful compared to  
source, but class diagrams are just required to define elements of other  
diagrams). If someone can confirms HOOD has something similar, I may say  
its time now to look at HOOD a bit also (the modeling language, not the  
method).


-- 
Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c’est pas pour  
les chiens.