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.....

??