>> Similarly with CASE, you edit in the case tool and then regenerate the 
>> source code.
> 
> Yep. This assumes you can put everything into the CASE tool that you 
> need. If the CASE tool is only generating the skeleton, you need to be 
> able to go back, is what I was saying.
> 
> Not being able to go back and forth is one reason the CASE tools are so 
> expensive - they can't solve just the part they want to solve. They have 
> to solve the whole end-to-end thing.

True enough.

I think the main thing, though, is that there's generally not a huge 
demand for CASE tools. Rational Rose lets me program in a diagram which 
describes exactly how a given function executes, but... it would be 
drastically, *drastically* quicker to type this as text. The diagramming 
tool makes it take 10 times longer to do (more or less) the same job.

I think perhaps the job could be quickER with something like Haskell, 
since there are so few primitives to deal with. But even then, typing is 
likely to be faster. (OTOH, with fewer primitives, maybe the reverse 
transformation becomes more feasible...)

Post a reply to this message