Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!rochester!udel!burdvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!polack From: polack@aero.ARPA (Alexander J. Polack) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: CASE tools Message-ID: <22375@aero.ARPA> Date: 6 Jan 88 18:58:07 GMT Reply-To: polack@aero.UUCP (Alexander J. Polack) Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA Lines: 51 Keywords:CASE, tools, evaluation I have received a number of calls and E-Mail messages in response to my original comment that I have done an evaluation of CASE tools. Most people want a copy of a report. Unfortunately, the full report is not available to public at present time. In a very near future (1-2 months) I am planning to publish an abriviated version of the report including the evaluation methodology. Bellow are some excerpts from my article that should give some indication of what I have done. The following tools were evaluated: TekCASE Teamwork Software Through Pictures DesignAid Exelerator TAGS Statemate In my evaluation I've looked into the following areas: 1. Methodologies the tool supports. 2. Platforms (workstations) and Operating Systems it supports. 3. Ease of use. 4. Ease of learning 5. Tool robustness 6. Its interface with other tools. 7. User interface. 8. Quality of support. The above list is NOT in the order of importance. However, I did concentrate on the "front end" parts of the software development cycle (analysis/design), considered ONLY tools that run on the 32 bit workstations with high resolution bit-mapped graphics displays that run multi-tasking/multi-user operating systems. I placed the issue of methodology support at the top of the list, since "a tool is just that - a tool". Very often if a tool does not support some useful methodology that can be taught by experts, it quickly becomes a very expensive graphic tool, and produces a very large number of dissatisfied users. When it becomes possible, I will let this group know where and when my report is being published. Regards, Alex Polack (213)373-5723