TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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]>
X-To:
Bruce Hennessy <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:57:07 -0500
Reply-To:
Stephen Leake <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Stephen Leake <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
<000201c2d372$29f1a530$116fa8c0@thinkpadbruce>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
Bruce Hennessy <[log in to unmask]> writes:

> Although I would agree that Ada makes it easy to partition code and hence
> responsibilities, I would also say that diagramming in UML, or Booch etc.,
> is a necessary thing to do in order to model the system you are building
> before writing package specs. Of course this depends on the complexity level
> of what you are building.

I have never understood why people feel "diagramming" is better than
writing Ada specs.

I understand writing very high level context diagrams, and even first
level data flows.

Beyond that, Ada is a better tool for discussing the details.

> Forget about having a pissing contest on which diagram technique to
> use; the thing with UML is that it is a global standard, hence a
> language that all developers can use to communicate design ideas.

Ada is also a "global standard". I suspect you mean "more people know
UML than other diagramming languages".

> The important thing is to utilize the diagrams to develop a design.

I agree, but I don't see the value in using diagrams for more detail
than top level data flows.

--
-- Stephe

ATOM RSS1 RSS2