Alf is an action language designed as a textual notation for specifying detailed behaviors within an executable UML model. The Alf implementation in MagicDraw, a leading commercial tool for modeling using the Unified Modeling Language (UML) from No Magic, Inc., aims to support the practical application of Alf in real-world uses of executable UML modeling. It includes syntax-aware editing and checking of Alf code, with valid code automatically and transparently compiled into UML activity models. The resulting models are fully integrated within the wider UML modeling context, and they can then be executed as part of full system simulation scenarios. The Alf compiler also tracks the dependencies of all Alf text on other UML model elements, allowing for automatic re-checking and re-building the Alf code as necessitated by changes in referenced elements. The goal is to provide an IDE-level experience for the easy entry and maintenance of Alf code within an overall executable UML model.

Article Free Access Share on Objects and domain engineering (panel) Authors: Sanjiv Gossain Cambridge Technology Partners Cambridge Technology PartnersView Profile , Don Batory University of Texas at Austin University of Texas at AustinView Profile , Hassan Gomaa George Mason University George Mason UniversityView Profile , Mitch Lubars Scientific and Engineering Software Inc. Scientific and Engineering Software Inc.View Profile , Christopher Pidgeon Cambridge Technology Partners Cambridge Technology PartnersView Profile , Ed Seidewitz NASA Goddard Space Flight Center NASA Goddard Space Flight CenterView Profile Authors Info & Claims OOPSLA '95: Proceedings of the tenth annual conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applicationsOctober 1995Pages 333–336https://doi.org/10.1145/217838.217872Published:17 October 1995Publication History 1citation274DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations1Total Downloads274Last 12 Months19Last 6 weeks2 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF

As shown by the work of Bertrand Meyer, it is possible to simulate genericity using inheritance, but not vice-versa. This is because genericity is a parameterization mechanism with no way to deal with the polymorphic typing introduced using inheritance. Nevertheless, if we focus on the use of inheritance as an implementation technique, its key feature is the dynamic binding of self-referential operation calls. This turns out to be basically a parameterization mechanism that can in fact be simulated using generics and static binding. And for some applications this approach may actually be of more than academic interest.

BackgroundSoftware reuse is a simple idea: reduce the cost of software development by developing less new software.In practice, however, achieving software reuse on a large scale has been frustratingly difficult.Nevertheless, as the complexity and cost of software systems continues to rise, there has been growing interest in really trying to make large-scale reuse a reality.Interest in reuse has been particularly.strong in both the Ada and objectoriented programming communities.This panel brings together key experts from these communities to discuss the issues, problems and potentials of reuse.This discussion is continued from the first meeting of this panel at the Tenth Washington Ada Symposium last June.Brad Balfour and David Wade represent two major projects using the Ada programming language.Brad Balfour is involved in the DOD Corporate Information Management effort, which, as part of the DOD Reuse Initiative, is attempting to realize widespread consolidation of DOD MIS software.David Wade works on the FAA Advanced Automation System project, a very large, complex project which provides a rich domain for reuse.

Though Ada and Modula-2 are not object-oriented languages, an object-oriented viewpoint is crucial for effective use of their module facilities. It is therefore instructive to compare the capabilities of a modular language such as Ada with an archetypal object-oriented language such as Smalltalk. The comparison in this paper is in terms of the basic properties of encapsulation, inheritance and binding, with examples given in both languages. This comparison highlights the strengths and weaknesses of both types of languages from an object-oriented perspective. It also provides a basis for the application of experience from Smalltalk and other object-oriented languages to increasingly widely used modular languages such as Ada and Modula-2.