It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
How to Describe "Use case Diagram" in formal style?
Anyone have template ?
If you mean by "describe a use case diagram" describing each use case individually, there is a "procedure" in RUP methodology.
CASE tools like Enterprise Architect or MagicDraw support it by built-in forms for specifying preconditions (what must be fulfilled before the use case takes place), postconditions (what is fulfilled after taking place) and scenarios (what is particular flow of events or actions, and it alternatives) etc.
But if you are serious about describing your use case, filling all its details into those tiny forms is quite uncomfortable and not-providing-easy-survey. You may produce a .rtf generated by the tool from your use case model (providing a template already present in the tools, usually not very good-looking:).
Another way (and my preferred) is describing use cases in a separate Word document by hand (and paste the use case diagram into it). This guy wrote an amazing book "Writing effective use cases". I personally recommend it to everyone coping with use cases in his every day job. Here you can find a "compressed" guidelines extracted from the book.
I believe most of the UML drawing packages will have templates for UC diagram. For example see "dia" or eclipse with modelling framework
Other non-free tools include MS visio, MagicDraw and so many more
Related
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 9 years ago.
Is it essential to have all 9 diagrams of UML to describe a system?
I know that sequence and collaboration diagram are isomorphic so one can be eliminated here, Is it OK if i represent it by only one diagram for dynamic part and one diagram for static part?
Actually UML 2.x has 14 diagrams.
But you do not have to use all diagrams in order to describe your system.
As a general advice:
Model and apply the UML for the smaller percentage of unusual,
difficult, tricky part of your design space [ Larman, Applying UML and
patterns]
Before drawing a UML diagram ask yourself : Why am I drawing this diagram? What is my real purpose? What kind of benefit will it give me? If you do not have solid answer or benefit, just do not draw any diagram.
Use UML diagrams for understanding nature of your problem-solution space,to explore your problem space , to explore new design ideas,to communicate ideas with team members, but not for just documentation.
So technically it is okay to have just two diagrams: one static
diagram like class diagram and a dynamic diagram like a sequence
diagram.
But technically correct does not mean it is the right thing to do
All diagrams should have a purpose-benefit for to draw it.Otherwise it will be not a modelling activity. It will be drawing exercise :-)
Use small number of diagrams which gives you most benefit-help you while developing your system.
Do not forget that the important thing is not drawing UML diagram. The important thing is finding right abstractions, assigning right-balanced responsibilities to objects, making your system flexible and extensible.
Finally
No UML diagrams can make your design "innocent-sinless". All design ideas that are on papers are "guilty", until their "innocence" is proven by working code. :-)
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
Hi i need a non deterministic constraint satisfaction problem tool, because i need different solutions with the same input of the problem. Someone knows about a tool with this characteristic?
I only know tools like Gecode (c++), Choco (Java) and Curry (Haskell) that i think work in deterministic way.
If what you want is to get some random solution, most CP tools have some support for using randomised heuristics. For example, the standard Gecode branchers have options for this, for example INT_VAR_RND and INT_VAL_RND for integer variables. To get a different search each time, make sure to set the seed uniquely.
Note that using random heuristics will not give you any guarantee of the distribution. For example, your problem might have only two solutions, but almost all random choices might lead to one of the solutions giving a very skewed distribution.
Are you trying to do Pareto optimization (aka multi-objective optimization) and let the user choose one of the pareto optimal solutions?
People have done this with Drools Planner (java, open source) by simply replacing the BestSolutionRecaller class. See this thread and this thread. Planner 6.0 or 6.1 will provide out-of-the-box pareto support.
Similar to what Zayenz said, you can try Minion with the flag -randomiseorder.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 11 years ago.
Other than the speed, what are the advantages/differences to each? i.e. can assembly do more than c/c++, or what advantages does java offer that python does not (excluding the fact that java is platform independent)?
A higher level programming language usually means that the programmer can be more abstract, and generally do less work, at the cost of fine control.
For example, programming a GUI in assembly would suicidal. On the other hand, machine code is necessary when you want to take advantage of device-dependent optimizations and features. I guess you can define that low-level languages as those that are used for low-level tasks, e.g. drivers, operating systems, and parsers. Of course, the definitions are always rather fuzzy.
Pretty broad question there, and I cannot answer for the specifics between python and java, but in general here's my thoughts... keep in mind, this is nearly a philosophical question (perhaps even best suited for the Programmers stackexchange group) so there's no god-like answer. here goes:
with low level languages (the closer you get to bit flipping), you tend to be closer to the system hardware and core operating system... resources are more explicitly manipulable... this makes for efficient programming in that you can streamline your logic, skim off the bundled crap you don't need and develop the perfect piece of code... the consequence is that it's usually harder to think in and thus code in.
higher level languages provide abstraction, moving the developer away from the worries of 1s and 0s to focus on more complex requirements of a system. they allow us to think about things closer to the semantics of human communication and thought. they also allow us to share work cross-platform sometimes when programmers work in high level languages that compile to common run-times. there are numerous other reasons, but you get the gist.
ultimately I look at low level languages as something to use to "make the best tool", and high level languages to "make the best use of the best tools"
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 12 years ago.
I'm looking for programming languages that let you redefine their type system without having to hack into the compiler. Is there anything out there that allows you to do that?
Thanks
In C you can use DEFINE to redefine everything.
#DEFINE int double
Whether it's good or bad you can find out here:
What is the worst real-world macros/pre-processor abuse you've ever come across?
If you're talking about redefining an actual type system, like making a statically typed language dynamic or making a weakly-typed language strongly-typed, then no.
Practically every language lets you define your own types, so I don't think that's what you meant either.
The only thing I can think of that might fit into what you're asking about are Macros in Common Lisp, which let you extend the syntax. This might be able to acheive what you are looking for, but until you state what it is exactly you're looking for, I can't really elaborate.
Also OCaml and its related languages allow you to do some pretty cool things with types. You can basically define any kind of type you can think of and then match against it with pattern matching, which makes it especially good to write compilers in.
Javascript, Ruby, and Smalltalk, just that i know of, allow you to do all kinds of stuff, even redefining on the fly what an Object can do. Perl allows you to redefine practically the whole language. Basically any decent scripting language, especially one that allows duck typing, should have equal power. But it seems to be really common among functional languages and those with functional abilities.
If I remember correctly, Ada have neat type-creation possibilities, specially for measures (for instance, defining a minimum and a maximum, checking operations between differents measures...). I've seen it quoted as an example to avoid very stupid bugs.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 13 years ago.
I don't know if I am a bad programmer because I often make mistakes when outputting information on a site, things like "thanx for subscribing to our service" instead of "Thanks for subscribing to our service".
I think this is because I usually don't concentrate on the spelling, my main focus is to get the functionality running perfectly. Please give me your opinion, do you concentrate on the spellings or the functionality?
If I'm writing a message which will be visible to users, I'll make sure it's clear and correct. If I'm writing a message which will only be visible to other developers, I'm slightly less careful - in particular, typos aren't really a problem, so long as I express myself clearly.
Fortunately my spelling/typing/grammar is reasonably good anyway, so I don't need to think too hard about this, but I think it is important for customer-facing text.
Developers often aren't very good at writing messages for users. It can be hard to put yourself in the position of someone who really has no idea about what's going on in the background: they just want to get their email (or whatever it is) working. If you're lucky, you may be able to get a technical writer to help compose appropriate text.
IMO attention must be paid to both. Cool logic and reliability are no excuse for crappy texts.
You could separate checking the resource from changing the source. When you do changes first change the code, test everything, then proofread the resources.
The CTO at my last job was dyslexic, and a completely brilliant programmer and manager. Every now and then I would go and make a spelling correction to one of his method or variable names (C# handles the refactoring pretty well) and it didn't really matter that much.
When there's user interface work it's much more important to spell things correctly coz it looks very shabby to have a misspelled UI.