TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
W. Wesley Groleau x4923
Date:
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 16:02:10 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
Adaworks:
> > [From Robert Eachus's remarks,] I wonder if there is a
> > better approach than UML for Ada.  ....

Eachus:
>     ... at this meeting everyone agreed that the right
> PDL/detailed-design language for Ada was compilable Ada.  In other
> words, compilable package and other specifications was the final
> product of detailed design.  ...
>
>     ... a large number of design problems were
> recognized when the PDL was translated into Ada specifications.
> ....  Since we were all using Ada
> compilers to do this checking as early as possible during the design
> process, it made sense to make the specs the output of detailed design.
> ...
>
>     Also note that there have were many  for Ada 83
> which provided tools that also checked that structured comments
> matched the code. Byron was probably the most successful of these.
> Why have ["annotation" languages] fallen out of favor ...
> [I guess] everyone has gotten better at expressing the design directly
> in the code and recognizing standard design idioms.
>
>     ....
> The amount of effort in process of going from UML to Ada
> specifications devoted to bookkeeping and writing code is minimal.
> The major effort is in making the various decisions that need to be
> made and documenting them.  ...

So can I summarize your view as

- Ada specs is a better design approach than UML for Ada code.
OR
- UML is a good preliminary design approach, with Ada specs for the detailed design
OR
- something else.....

??

ATOM RSS1 RSS2