Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

29

Well, I'm the academic who posted the original tweet. Tweets are not meant to be scholarly articles. They are advertisements, and I think they can also be controversial. Here are my follow-up tweets: 1) UML was created to model OO designs. It effect you are modeling the code of a system, not the system's behavior. UML is at wrong level. 2) the idea that 7 ...


11

As a researcher and a scientist, I've learned some simple rules, and the most important one is not to let my imagination set boundaries. What I mean is, the fact that I can't imagine a better way to abstract todays problems doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. It doesn't mean that another approach wouldn't completely alter the way we think about programming ...


10

I have no problem with the "level" of current languages, and I was a thorough disciple of Lisp-ism, but this whole conversation really bothers me. It bothers me because the language we're really using is the one that we and others have built on top of whatever the compiler or interpreter provides. The nouns, verbs, syntax, and semantics consist not only of ...


5

UML is the equivalent of taking a screwdriver and a hammer and taping them together and calling it a "Universal Fastening Tool." In theory it can be used to represent a ton of things in great detail, in practice its a bunch of poorly integrated tools claiming to be a single tool, that makes doing any one task far more difficult than having a proper tool to ...


3

I think there's also a case to be made that MDD is the worst thing that happened to UML (why else would we have the UML2 that we have?), but ignoring that for the moment... MDD = Model Driven <Design|Development>. The idea is to be able to develop solutions at a level of abstraction appropriate to the problem domain - that is, it is an attempt to ...


3

I think one of the things that his says is right. Programming languages today are at the right level of abstraction. But, I think that although, in the future, we may use the same languages as today, because compilers are getting better and processors are getter faster (as in they can do more computations per second), we may be able to operate a ...


3

I can give you an example of when meta-modeling was useful at my workplace. In the 1990s, the company where I worked grew quickly by acquisition. With each acquisition, new staff, systems, databases and data were added. By 2004, the IT department employed almost 5,000 people and had a yearly budget of 10^9 USD. Many of the smaller companies we merged with ...


2

I've seen a real-life example of Paul Graham's Blub Paradox on usenet. Lisp programmers were trying to explain to Python programmers what macros were good for. The Python crowd responded to every example with: "You can do the same thing in Python." The point the Lisp crowd was trying to make--that Lisp allows programmers to add their own control ...


2

An Alan Perlis epigram comes to my mind: "A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant." Also, I rather think of programming as complexity management rather than detail management. In so many words, if we can get away with knowing about microcodes and whatnot when writing many softwares (even get away even with ...


2

In my opinion it's not necessary to describe semantics of diagram elements which are already standardized by UML. Yes, there would be no need to describe the semantics of diagram elements when that semantics would be properly defined somewhere in the UML standard. The problem is that, especially with MDD, the full semantics depends on the code ...


1

I don't think that the point of the lecturer is that the comments should teach over and over what UML represents. Instead, I interpret your question as a special case of: Do I need to comment my code? If yes, how?. The usual controversy is around whether your production (being code or UML) is self documenting thus needing no comments, or whether comments ...


1

You're right that the stereotypes should need no explicit explanation (other than where they are defined, if you are using custom stereotypes for some reason); that's the point of using a stereotype. That usually does not mean you can avoid describing things though, as it is rare that software is just a coordination of stereotypes. Some description as well, ...


1

To answer your first question, from my own experience with MagicDraw UML (MDUML), you can build a Profile on the DSL Profile, if you do not want to directly modify the DSL you have or it is not editable. Your classes should utilise the same Stereotypes found in the profile, if any or you can make your own and apply them to the new classes you want to add. ...


1

Quote from Ed Seidewitz to this exact question: fUML is the culmination of a long quest of Stephen Mellor's at OMG, so, in that sense, it is targeted at Executable UML. However, since the OMG community interested in UML execution semantics goes beyond just the Shlaer-Mellor community (submitters, for example, included IBM and Care, as well as Mentor ...


1

I don't know of many projects using a completely MDD-oriented approach, but I've often come across projects that use generated sources and artifacts from models of various kind. I've found a few interesting links on this in the past: Here's a wikipedia list of projects based on Eclipse EMF (so, not necessarily consumer products using it, but still ...


1

Any decent Lisp implementation will provide you with all the LOP tools out of box. Languages like Nemerle will do the job just fine too. And there are specialised DSL-building frameworks like mbase or http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/ that can handle various target platforms.


1

I also think that Language Oriented Programming shows great promise, the possibilities look great and when you follow http://twitter.com/markusvoelter or read his blog http://voelterblog.blogspot.com/ you can see that it is pretty active. For what I have seen so far it isn't production ripe yet even for Java development, the C# part is even less evolved. ...


1

I agree with Uncle Bob that we don't need a MDA on the top of a programming language. I am a java developer and why to have my code generated automatically if the model can not handle detail management information. Saying that I disagree that UML is not the appropriate level of abstraction we need for our project as long as we don't expect UML to lead our ...


1

Bob Martin sees us as detail managers and our problems are at the detail level. Our problems are at the detail level because we are detail managers. If we worked at a higher level of abstraction the details would take care of themselves and we would no longer have to manage them.


1

What are "today's general purpose languages"? What are "our problems at this time"? Making real-time embedded programs is quite different from making a big data mining systems, which is quite different from making web applications, and all these obviously need to work at different abstraction levels. Even general purpose desktop software is being ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible