Le 2005/09/20, Trygve Reenskaug <trygver at ifi.uio.no> écrivait :

>Hi all,
snip.......
>BabyUML is a coherent multi-language discipline
>     for coding object interaction and objects/classes.
>
>An overview has been posted:
>     http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver/2005/babyuml/newdiscipline.pdf

Hi Trygve,

I appreciate a lot the effort you make to unify 'UML'...
I must say your effort to convert it in 'UPM : Unified Programming
Language' :)  which does modeling, composing, documenting all in itself.
This is what you call: 'expanding the scope' of the language you use.
A language in which we can have conceptual schema, communication
schema and algorithms implementation built in a real explicit object :
a special kind of component. 

New objects (components as you defined them) by which we can
focus on bigger parts/objects composing our application would
enforce some obligations as you say: 'No leverage without rigidity' but
they also must be easily modifiable...and if...

I'm trying to tell this: your proposition seems to be a top down
approache...I hope that it doesn't preclude exploration and easy
prototypage for the time when we ignore the solution and we search
for one..this call for bottom up -- anyway we need both -- and I
hope for simple things , don't want to take hours to program 'Hello
word'... :).  Yes what you propose seem interesting to me but as you
see I accept 'rigidity' meaning 'discipline' not non-flexibility.

May be some ideas from 'Domain-Driven Design' can be fold in
(services, aggregates,etc), your component can be defined (or used)
easily as AGGREGATE I think...

This 'enterprise' call for a lot of interesting problems to solve and I
will enjoy to actively follow it. 

Raymond