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.
Am I wrong on this? Would I be able to use UML in my work? I know that I've been on panels rejecting a candidate who started spouting about using UML. (OK, they were also talking about Z, formally proving programs and other things we didn't want for a "data juggler" who had to start with a backlog of data which had already had its format designed by experts elsewhere ;-) )
http://rabbit.stu.uea.ac.uk/pipermail/alug/2001-May/001083.html Only Brett seemed to criticise it...
Critisie my scheme or my methods?
Scheme afaict.
Good code is code which meets the needs of the application and doesn't crash. [...]
Being written is a prerequisite for these.
No its not, being written well is the prerequisite.
How is being written not a prereq for being written well? ;-)
Is an RDBMS appropriate, or should we just assume an OO backing store?
true, but the principles are the same, they all boil down to designing a relationa scheme which then needs to be normalised, and as relational theory is based on set theory as is OO theory the design is applicable to both, hence my keeping animplementation independent view of things.
The realities of modern RDBMSs with all the triggers and code inside the database seems to be quite far from pure set theory to me. There's quite a nice piece about it in the most recent VSJ, I think.