Re: How does one model behavior?

From: Leslie Sanford <>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:17:36 -0500
Message-ID: <47fd086c$0$16678$>

"David Cressey" wrote:
> "Leslie Sanford" wrote:
>> "David Cressey" wrote:


>> > Perhaps you could tell me how you express "what a class has to do".
>> > This might be close to what I'm asking for when I say "how to you model
>> > behavior".
>> Well, I do it in code.
> How well does this scale up?

I don't know. Probably not well. I write DSP code, specifically VST synthesizers and effects. These use models of filters, envelopes, oscillators, etc. If, for example, I decide to write a class representing the state variable filter, it's going to be pretty clear how it should behave, what methods it should have, etc. So my domain allows me to work from the bottom up to some extent. I can work at the class declaration level. Usually, I can mentally fit all the pieces together, or a simple scribble showing the data flow through the objects is enough. This works for me.

If I were thrown into a domain in which I needed to work at a higher level of abstraction, I would probably need to use a more formal method. This might require something like UML or whatever.


>>I don't use UML or any kind of
>> notation to design my classes. I do it in code. I may sit down and draw
>> out a state transition diagram for a class. But that's about it.
> State transition diagram speakes to the question I was really asking.
> A model doesn't have to be elaborate in order to be useful.
> In data modeling, what is left out of the model sometimes makes the model
> more useful for its intended purpose.

Intersting. I look forward to reading other responses you get to this thread and your replies. Received on Wed Apr 09 2008 - 20:17:36 CEST

Original text of this message