Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!andersen!tsarver
From: tsarver@andersen.uucp (Tom Sarver)
Subject: Re: Pictorial Case Tools
Message-ID: <1991May28.144602.6302@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sender: news@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mr. News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 192.42.140.1
Organization: Andersen Consulting
References: <1991May23.185623.24457@agate.berkeley.edu> <19874@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <1991May24.202600.14452@netcom.COM>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 14:46:02 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <1991May24.202600.14452@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
>>For me the main purpose of the pictorial case tools is to capture the design
>>at as early a stage as possible so that we can begin testing for consistency
>>and omissions with automated tools.
>
>I guess the issue I have with this is not so much the checking--I agree
>that tools automate checking--as it is the notion that there is anything to
>BE checked that is an indicator of good design. Yes, a tool can automatically
>check that all my bubbles and arcs line up properly, but the fundamental
>issue I have with this is: what proof, if any, is there that those bubbles
>and arcs have anything to do with a good design?
>    [Stuff deleted referring to metrics and correlation between good design
>     and good cross-checking facilities.]

The usefullness of cross-checking facilities of a CASE tools depends largely
on the methodology which it supports.  If the tools only recognizes bubbles
and arrows, then automated checking is of dubious value.  However, a more
precise methodology (or design technique) would deliver more value.

My case in point is Structured Analysis Design Technique (SADT).  The
constraints on using this technique are very specific.  For example, an
incoming arrow in the child diagram must be coming into the given box in
the parent diagram.

The value of using an automated SADT (which is available) is immediately
apparent specifically because of its cross checking facility.

Of course when choosing a methodology, you are implicitly saying, "I believe
that following this methodology will help me create better (insert your
criteria for better) software."  Then, choosing a tool which supports
the methodology is a natural extension of using the methodology.

>-- 
>**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
>*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
>*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
>*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *

--Tom Sarver
tsarver@andersen.com
Andersen Consulting, 100 S. Wacker, Chicago, IL 60606, (312) 507-4912