Hi,
"Couball, James" wrote:
>
> Why should there always be a gap between design and code?
>
> Why not just enrich UML with more "enaction" semantics (how much more is
> really needed?) and build a compiler that takes the model and produces code.
> The reason that we can't do this today is that UML was not designed to be
> enactable.
What sort of diagram would you like to enrich? An interaction diagram
containing all function calls (getter/setter, error handling etc.)
would be unreadable. Nassi/Shneiderman?
Design _is_ a higher level view. You can enrich a diagram, you can
narrow
the gap, but I think the gap is inherent.
> I believe we will see this change in the near future (1-5 years).
So what do we do _now_? What if your prediction does not come
true (vaporware and silver bullets come to mind)?
[SNIP]
Bye
Victor
************************************************************************
* Rose Forum is a public venue for ideas and discussions.
* For technical support, visit http://www.rational.com/support
*
* Admin.Subscription Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Archive of messages:
http://www.rational.com/products/rose/usergroups/rose_forum.jtmpl
* Other Requests: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To unsubscribe from the list, please send email
*
* To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Subject:<BLANK>
* Body: unsubscribe rose_forum
*
*************************************************************************
