Re: a few questions

[Roy Wilson <designrw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Peter,

See below.

Roy

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 1/31/01, 1:42:04 PM, "P.H.Welch" <P.H.Welch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote regarding 
Re: a few questions:

<snip>

> My students - like Dyke's - also seem to get
> along building highly concurrent systems without using UML.  

<snip>

> We also study various
> simulation examples that use tens of thousands of processes ... 

Are any of these JCSP-based?

> and they
> also get Rick Beton's one million process shout-down-the-pipe demo!

This is based on CCSP I assume.

> So, I think those primary UML forms of diagram expose flaws in the 
concepts
> of OO.  OO systems are networks of global interactions - anything can
> interact with anything they can see and, usually, that's a lot more than
> the documentation tells us.  We have to stare at the source code to 
really
> find out.  

Amen! In trying to figure out how to write certain kinds of programs in 
Java, I've had the suspicion that there's little/no "discipline" [excuse 
the facistic tone :-)], so that the possibilities for obfuscation (and, 
worse, miscommunication) are unbounded. Your comment may mean that my 
reaction is not simply the inability of old cortex to assimilate a new 
programming "paradigm" (Please muffle the scream :-)).

Roy