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 20:23:15 GMT
In-Reply-To:
<000301c2d380$72a75a00$116fa8c0@thinkpadbruce> (message from Bruce Hennessy on Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:53:33 -0500)
X-To:
Reply-To:
Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (23 lines)
> From: Bruce Hennessy <[log in to unmask]>

> if you are trying to 'reverse engineer' an existing system that is
> not OO designed, in order to continue to 'maintain' that system,
> i.e. fairly significant changes keep coming in - you could run into
> roadblocks when trying to represent that system in UML. For example
> class diagrams will be tough to produce when the Ada constructs
> don't fit nicely into classes.

As an example, consider generics .. Rose has no way of representing

  type T is private;
  with function "=" (L, R : T) return Boolean is <>;

let alone signature packages.

Lots and lots of "notes"!

We design for a code generator, so the application doesn't need much
of UML. However, I agree it can be tricky trying to model the way the
framework fits together, the saving grace there is that it "onlY"
needs to be understandable by people.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2