Re: UMLish modellers?
Re: UMLish modellers?
- Subject: Re: UMLish modellers?
- From: "Marco Scheurer" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 16:07:03 +0200
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 08:45:28 +0100 "Smith, Bradley"
<email@hidden> wrote:
>
> From: Marco Scheurer
>
> Sent: 10 September 2001 18:16
>
>
> What makes UML a better or higher level language than
>
> Smalltalk for instance?
>
>
Well, someone once said "A picture is worth a thousand
>
words".
Right...this phony chinese proverb was invented in 1921 by
the advertizing executive representing -not a CASE tool
vendor- but a baking soda company...
However, my point is that Smalltalk is just as expressive as
UML as a design language with the added benefit of being
executable. A working program is worth a thousand diagrams.
And anyway, I would suppose that UML diagrams with enough
details to be executable or to generate meaningful Java
classes would contain mostly text.
Marco Scheurer
Sen:te, Lausanne, Switzerland
http://www.sente.ch