Re: One language environment don't have future

[Stephen Leake <Stephen.A.Leake@nasa.gov>]

Karel Miklav <karel@inetis.spppambait.com> writes:

> Stephen Leake wrote:
>  > UML is just another "computer tongues". It's partly graphical, but
>  > that's not really such a big deal!
> 
> The IT tower of Babel may never be built, but UML and tools around it
> are a step forward. And there is a difference between modeling and
> coding; 

I can write "models" in Ada or in UML; there is not much semantic
difference. 

> I guess we're not going to rewrite data structures in all sorts of
> languages forever? 

Why should UML be the last one?

> Or watch compilers fuck us with cryptic messages? 

What are the error messages like from a typical UML compiler? I
confess I have not seen any yet. But I have no a priori reason to
believe they will be better than the ones from GNAT.

> There must be evolution even in IT.

Yes. That's how we got Ada 95. (thanks for the straight line :).

> I can't say that one language environment has a future, but 95% out
> of thousands of languages surely doesn't, because orders of
> magnitude of users do matter. 

That sounds like the DoD argument for Ada. That particular argument
appears to have failed, but Ada is still thriving.

> And even then, I'm not sure that textual representation of logic is
> the best there can be.

You may not be sure, but I'm sure Ada 95 is better than UML for
"logic". State charts are nice for systems that have lots of states,
and use cases are nice for all requirements analysis. The rest of UML
I can easily live without.

-- 
-- Stephe