Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: A CASE for the Macintosh
Message-ID: <2600@dciem.UUCP>
Date: 21 Jan 88 01:58:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: dciem.2600
Posted: Wed Jan 20 20:58:04 1988
References: <631@netxcom.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 43
Summary: 


>
>        CASE tools aid systems developers in the creation and validation
>of various types of diagrams. Techniques include DeMarco/Gane and Sarson
>dataflow diagrams, state-transition charts, structure charts, Chen or
>Martin entity-relationship diagrams, and others. Some even allow you to
>define your own symbols and modeling rules to set up your own diagramming
>techniques.
>
>These tools represent, for a Macintosh user, a paradox: They are
>all graphics applications - with mouse, icons, windows, menu bars - and
>they all run on IBM PCs. ... 
>So why isn't the Macintosh at the fore, or moving to be,
>in this market?

There exists an entity-relationship design and query tool for the Mac:
ERVision, by Andyne Computing, Kingston, Ontario (613) 548-4355,
or djr@zorac.arpa or djr@dciem.uucp.

ERVision is one of a set of three "Active Network" interfaces with
essentially the same interface to widely different applications.
The second is ACPVision, which is a MASCOT design tool for concurrent
processes, and the third is ATNVision, for developing ATN networks.

ERVision is commercially available (I think about $150 US), ACPVision
is something like Beta test, but I don't know whether it is intended
to be commercial, and ATNVision is Alpha test and probably will not
be commercialized (unless there is a demand).

Disclaimer:  I contracted with Andyne to have these developed, and was
closely concerned with many of the design decisions, but have no
financial connection with them other than through the contract.
I would be happy to see them used (and commented on), but don't
contact me about them.  Doug Ross (djr) is the one to talk to.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
mmt@zorac.arpa
Magic is just advanced technology ... so is intelligence.  Before computers,
the ability to do arithmetic was proof of intelligence.  What proves
intelligence now?