Re: UMLish modellers?
Re: UMLish modellers?
- Subject: Re: UMLish modellers?
- From: Brad Cox <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:35:43 -0400
- Organization: Virtual School
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:15:37 +0200
"Marco Scheurer" <email@hidden> wrote:
>
Yet I still find the lack of higher-level
>
solutions, like UML, that do support/encourage change
>
to be deeply discouraging.
What makes UML a better or higher level language than
Smalltalk for instance?
Closeness to the developer's, and the user's, frame of reference.
>
it SHOULD be possible to build a UML editor (with
>
hand-coded annotations) that supports deep refactoring
The Smalltalk refactoring browser in some cases requires
runtime analysis of the program to be refactored. Wouldn't
this be very difficult to do with generated code?
All typing in Smalltalk is occurs at compile time. That's its strength and
its weakness. I was thinking in terms of Java, where more/most is done at
compile time, in this case, as graphics are dragged around during
refactoring.
That said, I'm not making a technical proposal here. Just regretting the
lack of such approachs in the tool kits I've seen, namely UML versus
gvim+ctags.
--
Brad J Cox, Ph.D. email@hidden, 703 361 4751
For industrial age goods there were checks and credit cards
For everything else there is
http://virtualschool.edu/mybank
Java Web Application Architecture:
http://virtualschool.edu/jwaa