Neaill,
--- Neill Newman neill@entora.co.uk wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
David Freeman david_freeman@rocketmail.com writes:
This is cos you probalby have no formal training in systems
analysis.
once you try and use them they will become second nature, have a
look
at the book "UML in a nutshell" it explains it all, I was like
you I
ignored it all untill I understood how it would all work, I now
will
try and use UML for my software to improve it.
Well, I'll take a look, but the majority of systems analysis
methods
appeared to be focused on the object-orientated imperative
paradigm,
which isn't where I usually (want to) live.
that is true in some respects, UML, booch and the like are biased towards OO, but there are plenty of other schemes which can explain complex systems that don't use OO. In Electronic Engineering (yep, I call myself an EE as well as SE), there are methods that using state transition diagrams and flowcharts.
Good to here it, someone who calls them selves an engineer. UML and many other software systems analysis techniques can be used for many other uses.
While you can make a very bad flowchart, as well as a very good one, the point is that at least you have stood back and have a formal(ish) document which others can refer to. Whern you have large numbers of people working on something, you need to make sure that the design is set in stone, and cannot be open to interpretation. This is why a textual description is not good enough imho, as there is no formal use of english to describe something, therefore it is open to interpretation and errors are made....
Exactly. The english language is a self referential incomplete system ( i.e. recuresion to recursion) and by using a meta language - UML - we can desribe things without the self referentailism.
BUT, (bear this in mind) it is impossible to design a system that is exactly righ the first time round, there is an iterativation stage of modifications and design changes (the waterfall model for those in the know)... this does not necessarly mean that the system was badly designed in teh first place, it's just that until you actually start building the system you won't be able to see the technical dificulties...
I think you mean spiral, but your point is sound. We will get a system up and it will be tested and it will be iterated upon to complete a system.
my opinion, get a basic design that is fairly generic, build it, then find out what is wrong (hopefully if the first design is well thought out there will be nothing serious!) and iterate the design to incorporate these changes.....
Amen brother.
Thanks
D
just my 5p.. Sz
-- Open Source Specialists http://www.entora.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)701 0723686 Fax: +44 (0)870 3214368
alug, the Anglian Linux User Group list Send list replies to alug@stu.uea.ac.uk http://www.anglian.lug.org.uk/ http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/cgi-bin/listinfo/alug See the website for instructions on digest or unsub!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/