, 1971).
The branch of methods grewwith astonishing rapidity, largely subsuming the other
two branches, and producing huge numbers of methods of increasing complexity.
Aside from leaving practitioners stranded in a ???methodology jungle??? (Avison and
Fitzgerald, 1988), and for a long while forcing academics to limit their research to
classifying the methods (Olle et al., 1982), rather than examining howthey performed
in practice, the growth of methods easily outstripped that of the computer tools that
were built to help implement them.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF TOOLS 359
The very early, text-based Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) tools
such as PDL (Caine and Gordon, 1975), PSL/PSA (Teichroew and Hershey, 1977),
SEM (Teichroew et al., 1980), and SREM (Alford, 1977) had allowed changes to the
modeling language supported, which gave users some possibility to maintain tool
support in the face of rapid language evolution. However, newer languages and tools
had adopted graphical representations and interfaces. While these were substantially
easier to use, they were more complicated to specify, and thus CASE tools were no
longer able to provide the user with facilities for changing the modeling language they
supported. The CASE tools, heavily outnumbered by modeling languages, were thus
forcing the users to adopt their built-in modeling language and process, rather than
supporting the languages and processes from which the organization was already
starting to see bene?¬?ts.
Pages:
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684