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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,57c80c1c1b1f8820 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Vinzent Hoefler" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?Q29tcGFyaXNvbiA6IEFkYSBhbmQgVU1MIChjb21wYXJpc29u4oCmIGluZGU=?= =?utf-8?B?ZWQp?= Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:45:45 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Trace: individual.net nJM3Ael/SmAn/fST/Hjcugk4lnbOx340SyHH3H+EztXnE0inKL Cancel-Lock: sha1:YLtBpsZGToDG5i6Fwtz3X9UoiKU= User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.62 (Win32) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15997 Date: 2010-10-31T11:45:45+01:00 List-Id: On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:18:05 +0100, Yannick Duch=C3=AAne (Hibou57) wrote: > Le Sun, 31 Oct 2010 09:33:15 +0100, Vinzent Hoefler > a =C3=A9crit: >> HOOD emphasizes the use of state transition diagrams, data flow diagr= ams, >> and context diagrams. > That's nice, there is no Data-Flow diagram in UML. But Scenario seems > required, and you did not mentioned it. I would probably express them with context diagrams. Apart from that HOOD is very text-oriented. You just say what you need to say. ;) >> I think that's the wrong way of looking at HOOD. >> >> HOOD still is a design _method_ applying certain rules and restrictio= ns. >> 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. Yes. I would even say, the semantic is all that matters. Notation is jus= t an agreement, so that everybody else understands the same semantic. > 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. Well, when I said "appropriate stereotypes" this was meant to be "stereo= types with the properly defined semantic". Agreement about it (see above) play= s the most important part here. Just drawing pictures where everybody else understands something differe= nt, doesn't help, of course. But mis-using UML like you describe above seems= a common way of doing design these days. ;) > 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. Well, yes. The other possibility could be to restrict the possible notation to a very small set so that even a novice can understand the semantic in a couple of days. One is UML which is popular, so it is supposed to be understood, but has= a very large set of notations which are not even easy to grasp (at least n= ot in a couple of days), the other one is HOOD which is not popular, but th= e set of symbols is rather small, so it's relatively easy to learn. So, if you restrict the UML notation to the HOOD subset, you can get bot= h. ;) Vinzent. -- = There is no signature.