Re: Artistically creative expression has no role in software design

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> writes:

> Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote:
> : UML now includes (not sure at what revision exactly) an action
> : language specification which has allowed at least two companies to
> : create development systems where you can specify your subject in UML +
> : actions and have the resulting model execute (by complete translation
> : to a development runtime, possibly based on C) and be deployed (by
> : complete translation to a deliverable runtime, possibly in a different
> : language eg Ada).
> 
> Is this notation more readable than conventional programming
> languges?

The OMG part specifies the semantics required, not the syntax. So --
at the moment -- the syntax is up to the vendor. The last time I
actually dealt with this stuff was a few years ago, at the time I
wondered exactly what the vendors' qualifications as language syntax
designers might have been; it was rather simple (typing by first
assignment, for instance). But it was certainly clear enough about the
UML aspects (navigatinjg from instance to instance, for example); I
wouldn't have wanted to code up a Kalman filter in it, though. Code
inserts (Ada for us) were allowed.

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.