Subject: Re: MSC-News: Overview about different MSC Tools
From: Rick Reed TSE (rickreed#tseng.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 16:02:22 GMT
The originator of this message is responsible for its content.
----From Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to mscnews -----
Dear Markus,
Thanks for producing the list. This is a useful addition to the list on the
SDL Forum site. How long will you maintain this list?
Your list includes some tools that are no longer available or do not seem to
be supported. In particular (as far as I am aware):
Melba96
Jade
On the other hand you do not mention ObjectGEODE, which I think is still in
use (though possibly no longer for sale).
There were two other MSC tools called METEOR and MSC++, though possibly
these are no longer available.
I suggest you do some more research to check on the current availability and
viability of various tools. If you get no response from producers I guess it
is safe to assume the tool is no longer available.
I find Laurent's email
> Please could you correct the MSC tools list: the supposed "obsolete data
> types" etc. concern SDL-92, not SDL-2000. Also SDL-92 and SDL-2000 are
> "object oriented", this benefit does not come from SDL-RT. Same remark
> concerning "graphical language" (SDL-RT is less graphical than SDL).
>
> SDL-RT is based on SDL standard from ITU extended with real time concepts.
> SDL (ADD -92 HERE) has:
> obsolete data types,
> old fashioned syntax,
> no pointer concept,
> no semaphore concept.
>
> SDL-RT is a:
> simpler,
> object oriented,
> graphical language,
> supporting all basic real time concepts,
> based on standard languages.
misleading, because it repeats the text Laurent intends to correct.
This text gives the impression that SDL has
"obsolete data types"
what is obsolete about Integer, Structures, Boolean, String,
Vector, OctetString etc.
"old fashioned syntax"
while this is a value judgement, the SDL syntax has been
brought "up to date" in SDL-2000
"no pointer concept"
is simply no correct - SDL has OBJECT data types
that are references
The text (quoted from the SDL-RT site that SDL-RT is
"simpler" - probably but then "less powerful"
"object oriented" - so is standard SDL
"graphical language" - not as graphical as SDL!
"supporting all basic real time concepts" - open to question
"based on standard languages" - it uses some SDL and some C
but is proprietary
I suggest you make it very clear when you are simply quoting the claims made
by a web site, and you own views.
In my opinion a different list for SDL compared with "SDL-RT" could be:
----------------------
SDL-RT is loosely based on a version of SDL and relies on C for behaviour.
SDL:
advanced features such as exceptions and hierarchical states;
fully object oriented types for behaviour (agents and states) and data;
graphical syntax
well defined semantics (independent of target)
well defined shared variables, concurrency and interleaving
integrated with ASN.1
an International Standard
SDL-RT:
simpler set of features compared with SDL
depends on C language support
a proprietary definition
supports basic real time concepts
---------------------
Of course, I have biased my list in favour of SDL because that is what I
represent.
-- Rick Reed - rickreed#tseng.co.uk Tel:+44 15394 88462 Mob.:+44 7970 50 96 50----End text from Rick Reed TSE <rickreed#tseng.co.uk> to mscnews -----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a23 : Wed Jun 19 2013 - 13:16:38 GMT