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: 103376,f23f789345652e5b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.motzarella.org!motzarella.org!news.motzarella.org!not-for-mail From: Nicholas Collin Paul Gloucester Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Users of the BON notation among Ada users ? Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:24:37 +0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <0e67d712-c126-478f-b1bc-d2d22ae66952@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <25hhkg.t4r.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX1/Gp3ViebbW9FsiqJMoMYiEJVjcVt8HCkRvVnnGc90+RX3jGtEVU8rprAa4IgIW6BpghDABRZDnHXmUDNfgtqw+2Nv6UO45jCArgsUQdG7OivkNciIPYMaXTPdSqpFoCF505MLJXIDRwQ== X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to abuse@motzarella.org with full headers NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:24:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+vvDWNgCXr6yyd6T62kbs7HpsU1VOHd+AHytHzsm71bT/0x/oUI471D7kX8MM8gGY= Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZiJnjjyhziKRPGn0QwHAemOApdA= User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4358 Date: 2009-01-16T16:24:37+00:00 List-Id: On 2009-01-13, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"Martyn Pike a ?crit : | | | |> I have often wondered why HOOD and HRT-HOOD have not remained popular | |> within the Ada community. Or perhaps they have - anyone care to comment ?| | | |Because, unlike UML, they are not simply notations, but true design | |*methods*. They drive the design process through a precise engineering | |methodology. [..] | | | |[..]" | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| They do not. Not only do they lack rules for proceeding step by step, but even Burns and Wellings or another coauthor (who took HOOD and produced HRT-HOOD) admitted that HOOD and HRT-HOOD are not the best (though this is not why they are not popular): on Hardcopy Page 3-4 of Volume 1 of a preliminary defintion of HRT-HOOD it was indicated that formal methods are better. It was claimed however in that preliminary definition: "Structured methods often use a graphical representation, but unlike the informal diagrams these graphs are well defined" which is quite a boast. The inconsistency applied to layering (and hence to decomposition) in depicting use relationships to uncles as on for example Page 11 of their technical report on how HRT-HOOD could have been applied to the Olympus satellite (a technical report in which they excused their inability to use HRT-HOOD to satisfy the requirements which had been satisfied in the real mission without HRT-HOOD as describing the launched design which accomplished what was required as being overengineered) is reminiscent of problems with inconsistent levels of abstraction in UML. Note that in the large definition of RAVENSCAR coauthored by Burns and Wellings and Dr. T. V. (another proponent of HRT-HOOD), HRT-HOOD was not expressive enough for a diagram so a diagram like (but incompatible with) a diagram which might appear in HRT-HOOD was used. That is not a good advertisement. On Hardcopy Pages 2-18 and 2-25 of Volume 2 of the aforementioned HRT-HOOD document it was strongly recommended to add the Ada package Calendar but more recently this banned in another doucment with an intersecting set of coauthors (Hardcopy Page 19 of the aforementioned RAVENSCAR document). Coherency, anyone? The HRT-HOOD tool from Intecs-HRT was reputed to be very buggy. That would not have helped to make it popular. Yours sincerely, Nicholas Collin Paul Gloucester