Re: (FC-Devel) Language Choice (C , java , C++)

["Dr. Thomas Fricke" <Thomas.Fricke@oen.siemens.de>]

Hello All,

very soon I received an answer to my latest posting. Thanks to
Chandresh Turakhia. He wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
>  There was an Article in JOOP , I think by Shellor Mellor stating the
> Need and Implementations of
> 
> " Object Oriented Software ******Development ****** Language "
> 
> rather than
> 
> "Object Oriented Software ****Programming***** language"
> 

It is not difficult to agree.

> It stated that the language should have the "native " Support for the
> Development Process.i.e Support for "use cases " description and
> linkages to program files etc.
> 

Do you see any problems for the conceptual graph approach? I think,
even processes have to be mapped to code... somehow ?

> It was worth a thought. Since now , we can assume
> that the methods wars are over wich probably UML in the fore runner (
> no hard feelings ). And now necessarily PROCESS wars should start.
> 

We have not only a problem of methodology. The software does not need
to consist of a single (Unix, NT) process at a single site.  Can we
develop a distributed application using Eiffel with some open 
interface? Do we have an Eiffel ORB? for free, at least for Linux,
Unix and NT? 

From an abstract point of view, Eiffel sounds best. From a practical
point of view, we could need even ***brr*** some perl scripts for some
quick (and dirty ) maintanance tasks.

> Methodolies do not support Processes to the core except for
> guideliness which now has to rise to new heights , something like
> "Design patterns" for Prgramming , Imean "Design pattern for process"
> 

I agree completely.

> The Software Develpment Process Needs to be addressed . The Article
> had chose Eiffel with sme addition and called Eiffel+. I do advocate
> Eiffel.For that reason , I do not a word of Eiffel but what I want to
> draw attention
> 
>  " is the way we combine languages should be able to give Native
> Support for process".
> 

This will be our main task. Looks like building a palace in a swamp.

> If not Supported by Language , we Should create idioms for the same
> which would make development easy.
> 

I see the conceptual graphs as a realistic choice for this process,
if anyone has a better idea, I would like to listen.

Have a nice weekend,
	bye,
		Thomas

-- 
Thomas Fricke
SIEMENS AG, OEN TR SW PT    
Fon: +49/30 386-36 344, Fax: -21928
Siemensdamm 62, D 13629 Berlin