From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,57c80c1c1b1f8820 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?Q29tcGFyaXNvbiA6IEFkYSBhbmQgVU1MIChjb21wYXJpc29u4oCmIGluZGU=?= =?utf-8?B?ZWQp?= Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:18:05 +0100 Organization: Ada @ Home Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: gHYtk+mhCrTAX6LNXybaBQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15021 Date: 2010-10-31T11:18:05+01:00 List-Id: Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:33:15 +0100, Vinzent Hoefler = a =C3=A9crit: > HOOD emphasizes the use of state transition diagrams, data flow diagra= ms, > 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 ot= her >> 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 t= he >> method). > > I think that's the wrong way of looking at HOOD. > > HOOD still is a design _method_ applying certain rules and restriction= s. > 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 n= ot = entirely ignore part of the spirit of a possible method). As the initial= = message suggested, I do not bother about representation (this is not abo= ut = picture). Then about using stereotypes, this is something I would like t= o = avoid, precisely for semantic matters, as it seems many people already = draw diagrams without exact semantic in mind (an example, would be to Dr= aw = 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 =E2=80=9Cmore popular =3D more understood=E2=80=9D. I know= one of them win = here, but want to balance however. -- = Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es= t pas pour = les chiens.