Talk:Computer-aided software engineering

message: historical analysis is likely to raise controversy and POV. Getting a useful and balanced article describing the facts alone is hard enough. --RichardVeryard 07:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance 

message: I see nothing about CASE as used to create and track requirements as they relate to a test script/plan.  CASE is also quite important in that regard.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering#Process_and_methodology
(wvf) I would agree that lists of requirements ala the infamous US DoD MilStd 2167 are difficult to manage and require tool support.  In fact, the same company that started CASE (Nastec Corporation) also sold a tool specifically for that purpose.  That said, purists would argue that they violate systems theory in that they cannot be bounded, i.e., you have no way of defining when you are done defining requirements.  For that reason, they were not considered to be "engineering" although a lot of marketing literature would beg to differ.  UML suffers from the same problem if too much reliance is placed on use cases.  The only object oriented approach that I have seen that would qualify as an engineering discipline was developed by Jim Odell as a way of evolving information engineering.  Unfortunately most of his contribution was lost when OO "unified".
Don't forget the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) - requirements analysis is very important.
(wvf) I would totally agree. Nastec also had a tool called Life Cycle Manager that was too demanding for the microprocessors and networks of the day but it did provide a functionality that is still unmatched.  It was considered a CASE tool.
--
What happenend to the term CASE? It is very much out of fasion I believe. If you look for articles on CASE in either IEEE or ACM portals you will find virtually nothing post y2k. The term was IMHO replaced by MDA, MDSD and more specialized notions (Stub Code Generation, IDE Support, UML - Modeling, ...) of Computer - Aided. See http://radicaladaptor.blogspot.com/2008/10/is-case-dead.html for a more thorough discussion about the matter. I would like to see a discussion about the State-Of-The-Art in CASE tooling in the Article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.254.155.48 (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The number of software developers in the world continues to grow. And I don't know what "developing non-production software" would constitute, other than working on doomed-to-fail projects, which is probably not what you had in mind.--greenrd (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing content here! 

message: This page needs to be structured better.  However, I think that Stimpy's change kinda sticks out like a sore thumb when it is basically the only section on the page. --Whiteknox 14:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture of Page 

message: Someone should spin off pages for upper CASE, lower CASE, and I-CASE, at least in my opinion.  At any rate they should be extended.  This article is lacking in material, especially considering the breadth of its subject and its influence on software development.  --Whiteknox 14:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so.. upper and lower CASE are not common used term nowadays I think we have to split the term and make and open space to the most common terms used by people, as an example: mda case tools reverse engineering case tools, the upper and lower are not meaningful neither useful for people. And I'm sorry I don't have references but I think a folksonomy of case tools grow it by actual people using actual CASE tools will be more useful than the science definitions (and I've read a lot)  the taxonomy could have the following kinds (at least) MDA, Reverse Engineering, MDD, Database Modelling, UML, Agile Modelling, Domain Specific Language, Business Process Management, Software Architecture, Design, Requirements Management, Workbenches CASE Tools (of course there a lot more and some tools could be on several kinds but which category will be more useful? Aludstartups (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pages 

message: While I am mentioned in the article (Vaughn Frick), I am not the author.  That said, I can vouch for the accuracy of it.  I made a couple of minor edits but I found it highly accurate.  While I haven't looked for one, I don't believe anyone has published a history of our early work on CASE technology so an independently published account of the facts cited here could be hard to come by.  With respect to a recognized researcher in the field, I suspect I qualify.  After I left Nastec, I spent seven years as a researcher and analyst at Gartner covering software development methods and management, business transformation, e-business and IT management.  I left as a Group Vice President in 2001.  Since Gartner is generally considered the top IT research firm in the world, that should suffice.  If there is something specific in the way of verification that this "Wiki newbie" is unaware of that I might be able to provide, please let me know.  I will do my best. 
VFrick 08:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: request for verification / sources 

message: :Image:ERWin 4.1.4.3643 on Windows 2000 screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ERWin 4.1.4.3643 on Windows 2000 screenshot.png

message: I think the current second paragraph that starts "The CASE term largely fell out of use in the 21st century, with the steady rise in popularity of agile software development. " is OR and not really true. Lots of people still talk about CASE and while Agile is definitely picking up a lot of momentum (and IMO it is the wave of the future) I think it's very much over stated to say that everyone does Agile now and so people don't talk about CASE as a result. Unless someone can provide a reference to back up that paragraph I'm going to remove it or tone it down and move it to a section lower in the article.  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CASE and Agile 

message: That section just has the following as content:
# Central Repository
# Upper Case Tools
# Lower Case Tools
# Integrated Case Tools
with no refs. These are useful topics to expand on but this section as is adds nothing and I'm going to delete it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Components section 

message: Now that I've deleted content that wasn't sourced I don't think there is a need for this tag anymore. More good refs are almost always a good idea but I think given the size of the article the number of refs is adequate. What's more important I've checked one of the refs that is used the most, the IEEE paper, btw I have a copy if anyone wants one just let me know, and that paper definitely is consistent with what is in the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting tags for more refs 

message: The only reference for the Risks and associated controls section is this: http://ithandbook.ffiec.gov/it-booklets/development-and-acquisition/development-procedures/software-development-techniques/computer-aided-software-engineering.aspx and the text of that section in the article seems to be almost identical to the text on the source site. I can paraphrase the material and fix it but won't have time to do that right away. In the mean time I'm not sure, does anyone have any suggestions, what is the appropriate response here? Just blanking the section and then redo it or is it OK to leave the text as is until I have time to rework it? --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just blanked the section. Someone in the teahouse suggested using the copyvio template which I looked at but it seems like overkill to me for this case. (no pun intended) Overly complex. I'm just going to blank the section and document it here. If someone else wants to use the templates feel free. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the section. It's now titled: Major CASE Risk Factors. Still needs lots of work but at least the copyvio problem is fixed. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible plagarism issue: Risks and Controls Section 

message: The text currently in the section: CASE Software>Environments>Toolkits is a direct lift from the Fugetta paper. I'm going to fix today. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Did this along time ago but forgot to mark it  --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Plagarism Issues