Post #1407453
2026-03-07 16:55 UTC
@shriramk @cross @lindsey @krismicinski @jfdm @csgordon @jeremysiek Yeah, particularly the parts of UML about structure. The more behavioral parts always seemed like a clumsy PL to me, but the parts that constrain the architecture seem like a good starting point if we want to (semi) formalize the requirements we give to LLMs.
Replies (1)
-
@jfdm@discuss.systems 2026-03-07 16:59
@jschuster @shriramk @cross @lindsey @krismicinski@types.pl @csgordon @jeremysiek well some of us like behavioural (& other substructures) types and acvitivity and interaction diagrams (really models) provide a nice end user view of what the types should look like.