Planteos de interés:
De Martin Danner:
As I monitor the online chatter among folks creating this new model-driven development technology, I am concerned that the discussions center mostly on academic concepts, with little or no concern as to whether the typical IS shop is ready or able to adopt it. I often wonder if this new technology will require special skills that don't currently exist in the IS workforce. Will developers treat models as a new kind of development language, or will model-driven development be limited to only a few who are willing and able to master it? Will these models be first-class artifacts throughout the entire life cycle of an application, or will the fancy code generators all be abandoned as soon as the developers start tweaking the code directly?De Steven Kelly:
The last time we heard a message promising massive productivity increases was with CASE tools and fourth-generation languages like PowerBuilder. They failed to bring about the expected revolution, because they tried to impose three things on the users: a way of working, a way of modeling, and a way of coding. Since the tool vendor's way rarely fit with the users' existing practices, there was a major disconnect. Of all the problems, perhaps the difference between the generated code and the kind of code the users had handwritten was the worst. Because the vendors had to make one tool work for as many people as possible, the code generated couldn't be tuned to the specific needs of all its users. It also had no chance to take advantage of their existing investments in code and frameworks.Steven Kelly apunta sobre Software Factories:
I have [to] disagree with Jack [Greenfield] when he says [the] model-driven development world can be categorized in the MDA and the software factories, and these are the two leading approaches. He is right clear between the MDA and the rest, but I don't see many people in the rest would accept being labeled in the software factories. For one thing, is not necessary the most appropriate refactoring the names, being all-too-easily misunderstood, because there is false analogy between the program mist and factory's assembly-line workers, and also the disconcertingly having the same abbreviation as "science fiction."La discusión merece ser analizada. ¿Y qué tiene de obsoleta? Que las afirmaciones de Kelly sobre las Software Factories de Greenfield/Microsoft , certeras, hablan de algo que parece haber derivado a vía muerta. Microsoft hoy habla de Oslo, M, Quadrant, UML (!), OMG (!), y probablemente no desee recordar demasiado a SF.
Y quizá además algunas afirmaciones sobre DSL tampoco sean ya tan rotundas.
Las direcciones de la discusión: en Microsoft, 1 y 2. En ARCast.