How does the Unified Modeling Language compare to Booch, Objectory, and OMT?
The Unified Modeling Language is simpler, more self-consistent, and more expressive. Furthermore, the Unified Modeling Language is a natural successor to Booch, Objectory, and OMT, and as such it is compatible with each. It’s simpler in that we’ve found a number of elements collapse into one. For example, Booch used the notion of active objects and persistent objects. We generalize this by denoting them as stereotypes or properties in the Unified Modeling Language–which also lets us express things like location for distributed systems. Similarly, Objectory used different kinds of classes in its models. This generalizes to the stereotype concept as well. OMT had data-flow diagrams, which are thrown out and replaced with, among other things, use cases. It’s more self-consistent in that the metamodel hangs together well. We’ve eliminated the confusion surrounding has relationships in Booch. Objectory’s use cases have application in a number of places in the metamodel. OMT’s semantics of
Related Questions
- How does the Unified Modeling Language affect existing Booch, Objectory, and OMT users?
- How does the Unified Modeling Language affect existing Booch, Objectory, and OMT users?
- How does the Unified Modeling Language compare to Booch, Objectory, and OMT?
- Whats our schedule for the Unified Modeling Language?
- What is Unified Modeling Language (UML)?
- What is Unified Modeling Language (UML)?
