Re: Alloy paper



Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

robert france (france@CS.ColoState.EDU)
Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:14:43 -0600 (MDT)


Hi Daniel, Sounds interesting! I'll definitely read it. The pUML approach has its critics in the informal and formal camps. Speaking in very loose terms: On the one hand there are those that feel that the problems with the UML and OCL are too severe and that a much cleaner, precise (and smaller) language can be built from scratch (using best experiences from the FM community); on the other hand there are those that view the informal nature of the UML as a plus. As an academician I can appreciate the first view; as an academician that has worked with industry - some would say I'm now contaminated :) - I have some sympathy for the second view. A solution that is acceptable to industry may lie somewhere in between. This is what we are trying to do within the pUML group. In the end a new language like Alloy may turn out to be a more superior language; but history reminds us that this is not enough to gain acceptance in industry. As an interesting option, have you considered defining a UML profile for Alloy (i.e., using a UML-like syntax for Alloy language elements) ... Robert ==================================================================== Robert B. France, Assoc Professor | Tel: 970-491-6356 Computer Science Department | Fax: 970-491-2466 Colorado State University | Email: france@cs.colostate.edu Fort Collins, CO 80523 | www.cs.colostate.edu/~france/


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view