Examples of such are Merise,SSADM, IDEF,UML, and SysML. It is
worth noting that in the past what has made the languages viable is not pure
standardization but their practicality in automating development. For example, in the
telecom area SDL works well for protocol design and similarly many standards for
data modeling and schema de?¬?nition (e.g., Express and Express-G). Standards cannot
offer much security either. In the short term they evolve and newer versions of the
language may not be compatible with the old one, or at least the tools implementing it
may not exist anymore. Some languages, notably UML, are so poorly de?¬?ned in
places that it becomes impossible for tool vendors to implement the language in the
same way. Standard languages also have a life cycle and in the next major change may
become obsolete. This happened to many past modeling language standards. In the
following, we describe how DSM differs from other modeling approaches.
3.3.1 How Does DSM Differ from UML?
UML has done a great favor to the software industry by emphasizing the need to
consider design ?¬?rst. Unfortunately, the UML standard offers very little help in
automating development work or increasing productivity. As demonstrated with the
example in Chapter 1, UML does not raise the level of abstraction above code
concepts nor adequately support code generation.
Pages:
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124