TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:01:33 GMT
In-Reply-To: <001501c2d3a6$c322e0f0$116fa8c0@thinkpadbruce> ([log in to unmask])
Reply-To: Simon Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (18 lines)
> From: "Bruce Hennessy" <[log in to unmask]>

> My point really was just that a common nomenclature is better than
> everyone having their only personal drawing methodology - it saves
> alot of time if we are all speaking the same language. For companies
> trying to make money off developers perhaps confusion and
> differences are better things, but I think there is a strong case
> for the opposite as well. With a common design language as a
> commodity, there is then much room for money to be made in tools to
> help automate software development processes... This is happening
> now with UML and the model driven architecture -
> http://www.omg.org/mda/.

Agreed  with all that, really.

At least with a common set of diagramming techniques and some semantic
background you have somewhere to start from.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2