bruno at modulix wrote: [...] > Yes, there's in UML a fundamental distinction between classes and > objects - distinction that does not exist in a lot of OO languages. This > greatly limits UML's usability for some common idioms in dynamic OOPL's. > Seems like UML has been designed to express only the restricted subset > of OO supported by rigid static languages like C++, Java and ADA.
Moreover, it also seems like UML has been designed to express the restricted OO subset of the paradigms supported by languages like C++ and ADA. And I suspect UML design tools are not that popular within the C and Lisp programming communities... Cheers, Nicola Musatti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
