From: Oyvind Teig (Oyvind.Teig_at_email.domain.hidden)
Date: 1998-05-25 11:17:57
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
This is spawned from the Lamport discussion, I don't
mean to shut the original thread off.
Paddy wrote:
> As I understand it Oyvind, UML is a design syntax
> without a prescribed process. You use it as you
> wish! It's trying to be "all things to all men" as
> far as I can see. I haven't really formulated a
> good reason as yet to agree or disagree with this
> approach - but the world at large seems to like
> it!
This excludes a clean occam system from being designed
with UML, i believe:
A frequently asked question has been, ^SWhy doesn^Rt UML
support data-flow diagrams?^T Simply put, data-flow and
other diagram types that were not included in the UML
do not fit as cleanly into a consistent object-oriented
paradigm. Activity diagrams accomplish much of what
people want from DFDs, and then some; activity diagrams
are also useful for modeling workflow. The authors of
the UML are clearly promoting the UML diagrams above
over all others for object-oriented projects, but don^Rt
necessarily condemn all other diagrams. We believe we
defined a set of successful and practical techniques,
fitting within a consistent paradigm.
http://www.rational.com/uml/html/summary/summary4.html#4.1
So many people think like us, surely CSP-type thinking
should be part of UML!?
Cheers,
Oyvind Teig, Autronica, Trondheim, Norway
Oyvind.Teig_at_autronica.no
Tel.: +47 73 58 12 68
Fax.: +47 73 91 93 20
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 on 2004-10-31 20:03:56 GMT
© Copyright WoTUG
All rights reserved