TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:15:27 GMT
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]> (message from Jeffrey Carter on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:31:55 -0700)
X-To:
Reply-To:
Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
> From: Jeffrey Carter <[log in to unmask]>

> I don't know if I'd go that far. UML is primarily a requirements
> notation, and does not seem to me as well suited for design as for
> requirements. It also has a lot of diagrams, each of which adds only
> a little information. The reader has to understand each of those
> many diagrams and integrate them in his head to understand the
> system. I would much prefer a notation with fewer diagrams, each of
> which conveys more information.

UML is a bag (ragbag) of everyone's favourite techniques, apart from
DFDs. None of the originators would have used all the diagrams, so
there's no reason why you should either!

As a simple for-instance, we never use component diagrams (because we
allocate code to Ada packages using translation rules instead).

ATOM RSS1 RSS2