TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text 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:
"Criley, Marc A" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Criley, Marc A
Date:
Thu, 14 Oct 1999 16:00:04 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
Having now read the CACM article, "UMLoquent Expression of AWACS Software
Design", I must add my apologies to the authors for my earlier ill-informed
posting.

The statement in the article, "Attempts to forward engineer classes
contained
in NMT's logical view into Ada specifications have been of little value
because
of the fuzzy semantics associated with mapping classes represented with the
UML
into Ada", is not a denigration of Ada.  _Out_of_context_ one might get the
idea
that the Ada language itself is in some way inadequate, or so "off the
beaten
track" that UML doesn't map well to it.

That is clearly _not_ what the article is saying, the criticism is in fact,
I
believe, that the UML mapping and available toolsets inadequately exploit
Ada's representational capabilities.  As an example the article cites
difficulties in getting the toolset to map UML classes as child packages,
both
in forward and reverse engineering.  And in my opinion, child packages are
one of the very best features incorporated into Ada 95, so the fault here
lies
within the UML sphere.

Marc A. Criley
Software Architect
Lockheed Martin M&DS
(610) 531-7850
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2