 UML and DSLs
started 4/22/2004; 3:40:54 AM - last post 4/26/2004; 3:03:10 AM
|
|
Ehud Lamm - UML and DSLs 
4/22/2004; 3:40:54 AM (reads: 8753, responses: 6)
|
|
| UML and DSLs |
|
Forget the Microsoft slant of the referenced blog post, and consider the fundamental issue. Despite the name UML is hardly a language, given the problematic nature of UML semantics (yeah, I know about OCL).
Modelling and specification are just as much in need of well defined semantics as is programming. Perhaps even more.
In order to provide good tool support we need to have a standard syntax, well defined semantics, and rigorous domain models.
Language designers are here to stay... The PL community is likely to produce the next innovation in software engineering.
But that doesn't surprise anyone here, does it?
Posted to DSL by Ehud Lamm on 4/22/04; 3:41:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Andris Birkmanis - Re: UML and DSLs
4/23/2004; 10:31:21 AM (reads: 254, responses: 0)
|
|
|
LtU could sponsor a survey:
1. whether people use UML for decorating napkins, and 2. whether they generate code from UML.
I personally do 1. quite often, and regard this just as a variety of mind mapping.
I do not do 2. at all, though the company I work for does it on a regular basis.
I do generate a lot of UI and state management code from models, but that does count as DSL, right? ;-)
|
|
Chris Rathman - Re: UML and DSLs
4/23/2004; 7:09:28 PM (reads: 230, responses: 0)
|
|
|
If you believe the hype, we programmers are a dying breed. :-)
|
|
Frederik De Vos - Re: UML and DSLs
4/24/2004; 7:19:06 AM (reads: 207, responses: 0)
|
|
|
Until I see a complex application of real
executable UML, I'll be very skeptical about
MDA. The UML diagrams would be likely to cover
a soccer field. UML was originally aimed at
communicating overall structure. How could
it ever be turned into something executable,
without becoming a huge web of constraints,
associations, generalizations etc...? If the
goal is to make things more simple and more
efficient I have strong doubts MDA does that.
Wouldn't logical/functional programming languages
do a better job at grasping the functional
requirements? My intuition tells me that less
code is refreshing and that imperative languages
imply more choices that could later prove to be a
problem. Smarter IDEs and refactoring won't wash
that away.
|
|
Andris Birkmanis - Re: UML and DSLs
4/25/2004; 4:18:32 AM (reads: 189, responses: 0)
|
|
|
|
Sébastien Pierre - Re: UML and DSLs
4/26/2004; 1:49:21 AM (reads: 150, responses: 1)
|
|
|
I'm very curious to see how this MDA hype is going to evolve... I see that all these OMG and corporation-driven initiatives converge to the same goal: allow more people to develop (complex) applications without the knowledge currently required to do it.
Still, even if it was actually possible to compose an application by visually associating components (this is one of MDA aims), I guess that the problem would still rely in managing the complexity inherent to composition (it is usually a pain to make components interact properly together).
Above all, UML 2.0 seems on the wrong path, being based too much on industrial languages (C++, Java), it focuses on modeling data but is poor on modeling behaviour. And behaviour is just the problem of interacting components.
Anybody has tried to use UML for functional languages ?
Also, it is interesting to read Martin Fowler's opinion on MDA, http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/ModelDrivenArchitecture.html.
|
|
Andris Birkmanis - Re: UML and DSLs
4/26/2004; 3:03:10 AM (reads: 146, responses: 0)
|
|
the problem would still rely in managing the complexity inherent to composition
While I am in Lamport-mode, a citation to back your statement:
Composition: A Way to Make Proofs Harder
A controversial paper (IMHO, of course), but I like to read controversial papers :-)
[On Edit: oh, I already cited this on the thread, looks like my mind has been affected by reading too much this weekend. Sorry :-(]
|
|
|
|