Hi Jeff, > for a telecom product. It was great if what you were doing fit well into SDL, > but plugging in say an std::list was a nightmare -- basically undoable (C > wrappers and such). He hated every minute.
Me too :-))) > 4) I think you are right that your submission can cover most of the > ground of both. That said, I for one, think that coverage of UML is > the more important of the two. A few developers I've met actually > understand something about UML state diagrams. Barely any have > any idea about SDL and I've worked on various telecom projects > for at least 8 years... Agreed. Andreas has it covered. Perceived competition between UML and SDL is a bit of a fizzer in that they have the same roots and huge overlap in goals? Didnt see it like this myself until recent catch-up. UML wins on familiarity and comfort? Your point about "few developers" is spot-on. Consistent with a recent CUJ article that tried to sell the value of state-machines. Used the example of a VB implementation of calc.exe to highlight the fact that we (developers at large) tend to avoid proper handling of async events. Its everywhere (GUIs, devices, networks...) and yet a low percentage of software solutions are formalized with the likes of UML. Maybe boost::fsm is going to be sexy enough to lure a few more developers? PS: 8 years of telecoms without SDL? Almost jealous ;-) > > > Jeff > _______________________________________________ > Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
