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

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

Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:33:15 +0100, Vinzent Hoefler  
<nntp-2010-10@t-domaingrabbing.de> a écrit:
> HOOD emphasizes the use of state transition diagrams, data flow diagrams,
> and context diagrams.
That's nice, there is no Data-Flow diagram in UML. But Scenario seems  
required, and you did not mentioned it.

>> 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).
>
> I think that's the wrong way of looking at HOOD.
>
> HOOD still is a design _method_ applying certain rules and restrictions.
> It just uses a specific notation (merely for historical reasons, I'd  
> say).
>
> 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.
I see both point, and here is : what is involved is not only notation,  
also semantic. Even if semantic is not a process as directed by a method,  
there is in semantic, a seed of something fundamental (so my view does not  
entirely ignore part of the spirit of a possible method). As the initial  
message suggested, I do not bother about representation (this is not about  
picture). Then about using stereotypes, this is something I would like to  
avoid, precisely for semantic matters, as it seems many people already  
draw diagrams without exact semantic in mind (an example, would be to Draw  
a package, and give that package the Ada semantic instead of the UML  
semantic). No need to add more possible source of miss-understanding.

For the smalltalk, all the above is also why I consider popularity. I  
simply expect “more popular = more understood”. I know one of them win  
here, but want to balance however.

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