BabyUML
jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
Fri Sep 23 21:12:29 UTC 2005
Richard, I applaud your opening remarks.
I only wish I could be so succinct.
My anger at being accussed of Trolling, is quickly gone.
I will ruminate on the rest of your email, over a good cup of tea.
Thank you for a glimpse of light at the end of a long tunnel.
"Proccede Desire with Design"
Justin
---- Richard Staehli <rastaehli at mac.com> wrote:
> Trygve, I applaud this effort to close the gap between design and
> implementation. I learned the distinction between an objects design
> "role" and its implementation "class" from your book "Working with
> Objects". I agree that it is still a huge problem to rely on
> programmers to realized design constraints expressed in a separate
> (e.g. UML) language, if at all.
>
> I have two main comments. First, your short document ignores related
> work like the Model Driven Architecture work of the OMG. While you may
> not have the time to follow all such work, you might find a very
> knowledgeable audience to critique your BabyUML work through Jan Øyvind
> Aagedal at SINTEF.
>
> Second, I believe the biggest challenge in translating design to
> implementation is architectural tradeoffs to achieve extra-functional
> (QoS) properties. Where OO design is concerned with the semantics of
> communication between objects, much of our implementation is concerned
> with the look and feel of a GUI or the scalability of algorithms to
> access persistent data. These architectural tradeoffs are typically
> made in the context of a particular user environment or assumptions
> about the deployment resources and loads. As a consequence, they are
> generally orthogonal to the primary functional decomposition. In AOP
> terms, these are cross-cutting concerns. If a programmer must specify
> how to resolve these architectural tradeoffs in BabyUML, then I expect
> BabyUML will be little better than a visual programming language; it
> will fail to untangle your spaghetti. Our research in the QuA project
> (http://home.simula.no:8888/QuA/) suggests that design must be broken
> up into small components that are pieced together through architectural
> decisions by either a software architect/engineer, or perhaps by an
> automated "service planner".
>
> I look forward to hearing more about BabyUML.
>
> Richard Staehli
>
> On Tuesday, September 20, 2005, at 01:10 AM,
> squeak-dev-request at lists.squeakfoundation.org wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > Sorry, folks - it's long (10 pages).
> >
> > The title may be a show stopper:
> > Towards A New Discipline of Programming
> >
> > Enjoy
> > --Trygve
> >
> > P.S.
> > I have, of course, started building BabyUML an extension of Squeak,
> > but it does not appear to be a realistic task for a one-person team.
> > More about that when I see the response to this opener (if any).
> >
> > --
> >
> > Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no
> > Morgedalsvn. 5A http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver
> > N-0378 Oslo Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
> > Norway
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|