Talk:Computer-aided software engineering

Popularity of CASE

Why haven't we taken to == CASE == the way we took to third generation language, to micro-computers, or to computing in general?

Interesting question, but perhaps not one that this Wikipedia article should try to answer. This kind of 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)[reply]

the same article

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Computer-aided%20software%20engineering

Criterion for listing of CASE tools

I wonder what was the criterion used to list some CASE tools. By taking a look at the list as it is now (Feb 8 2005), some reader could get the impression that the list is somewhat exhaustive, or that all CASE tools are commercial, closed source.

Of course, there are lots of alternatives in the free software/open source worlds, not worth mentioning becaues they are inmature, or just poor quality alternatives. However there are some others that deserve attention: attention from the readers. I would particularly like to suggest the addition of ArgoUML.

Missing content here!

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

Don't forget the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC) - requirements analysis is very important.

Architecture of Page

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)[reply]

More pages

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)[reply]

re: request for verification / sources

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VFrick (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]