Comments on: 13 reasons for UML’s descent into darkness http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/ Bare bone information! Thu, 16 Jun 2011 07:50:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: hubert http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-2141 hubert Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:29:18 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-2141 MDD (Model driven development) is dead but not UML. In my project I use an Eclipse tool which provide merge option. It means that I can model, then type my code manually or let the tool generate the code, and code manually my project and then reverse it again and again and again as many times as needed. My model is always updated and accurate. Such UML is really cool and it exist today with Eclipse. I will not give the name of the tool I use but if you google you should easily find. MDD (Model driven development) is dead but not UML.
In my project I use an Eclipse tool which provide merge option. It means that I can model, then type my code manually or let the tool generate the code, and code manually my project and then reverse it again and again and again as many times as needed. My model is always updated and accurate.

Such UML is really cool and it exist today with Eclipse. I will not give the name of the tool I use but if you google you should easily find.

]]> By: The Chartered Engineer http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-838 The Chartered Engineer Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:21:47 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-838 In any case, the Three Amigos should have been done for plagiarism. The Class diagram is nothing but an ERD, Sequence diagrams have been used by electronics and signalling industries for decades, similarly Statecharts were around years ago, and the Activity diagram is just a glorified flow chart that anyone from the 1950s would recognise. And yet, given the lies and propaganda of the snake-oil vending toolmakers, UML was supposed to revolutionise software engineering. These people should have the hardback copy of ‘No Silver Bullet’, suitably smothered in Vaseline, inserted into their bodies. Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Rapists, Paedophiles, UML Tool Vendors… In any case, the Three Amigos should have been done for plagiarism. The Class diagram is nothing but an ERD, Sequence diagrams have been used by electronics and signalling industries for decades, similarly Statecharts were around years ago, and the Activity diagram is just a glorified flow chart that anyone from the 1950s would recognise.

And yet, given the lies and propaganda of the snake-oil vending toolmakers, UML was supposed to revolutionise software engineering. These people should have the hardback copy of ‘No Silver Bullet’, suitably smothered in Vaseline, inserted into their bodies.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, Rapists, Paedophiles, UML Tool Vendors…

]]> By: Minh Tran http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-829 Minh Tran Tue, 29 Dec 2009 05:12:38 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-829 make UML -light like mind map. complex associations need to be express with link description. mindmap styled UML should bring more fun to people brainstorming. greate post. UML 2.0 sucks. make UML -light like mind map. complex associations need to be express with link description.
mindmap styled UML should bring more fun to people brainstorming.

greate post. UML 2.0 sucks.

]]> By: James http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-828 James Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:37:45 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-828 Great post. Cannot agree more! I totally agree with point #11. Classes evolve and it's a pain to update the UML as well. It might be good during the initial stage of a project but after that it really becomes a pain to maintain it. Great post. Cannot agree more!
I totally agree with point #11. Classes evolve and it’s a pain to update the UML as well. It might be good during the initial stage of a project but after that it really becomes a pain to maintain it.

]]> By: baboune http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-827 baboune Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:52:05 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-827 AH! Good article! I liked UML 1.0, it helped to understand, communicate and define software problems. Then came UML 2.0 and Rational Software Architect, and I gave up. Best UML tool out there: http://www.websequencediagrams.com/, basically lets you write sequence diagram from a simplified language and generate diagrams for you. Example: Alice->Bob: Authentication Request note right of Bob: Bob thinks about it. Bob-->Alice: Authentication Response Generates this: http://www.websequencediagrams.com/cgi-bin/cdraw?lz=QWxpY2UtPkJvYjogQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gUmVxdWVzdApub3RlIHJpZ2h0IG9mIAAlBUJvYiB0aGlua3MgYWJvdXQgaXQuCkJvYi0tPgBMBQA5E3Nwb25zZQ&s=default And now I love UML again :) AH! Good article!

I liked UML 1.0, it helped to understand, communicate and define software problems. Then came UML 2.0 and Rational Software Architect, and I gave up.

Best UML tool out there: http://www.websequencediagrams.com/, basically lets you write sequence diagram from a simplified language and generate diagrams for you.

Example:
Alice->Bob: Authentication Request
note right of Bob: Bob thinks about it.
Bob–>Alice: Authentication Response

Generates this:
http://www.websequencediagrams.com/cgi-bin/cdraw?lz=QWxpY2UtPkJvYjogQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gUmVxdWVzdApub3RlIHJpZ2h0IG9mIAAlBUJvYiB0aGlua3MgYWJvdXQgaXQuCkJvYi0tPgBMBQA5E3Nwb25zZQ&s=default

And now I love UML again :)

]]> By: malofey http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-818 malofey Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:49:48 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-818 UML is a meta-model to design models, not code. You could interpret the abstract model as java, .net, whatever implementation you want, but it’s not build with Java inner classes in mind… If you use UML as a coding developer tool you may expect no more than better objects ‘visualization’ for documentation, but the UML paradigms aim to cover more generic scopes. Components, interactions, systems, business rule for example. With UML models you may create PIM and PMS trasformation (platform indipendent/specific models) but not handle in a ‘one-click-and-go’ java IO handling for instance or generic paradigms to code Java closures… UML is a meta-model to design models, not code.
You could interpret the abstract model as java, .net, whatever implementation you want, but it’s not build with Java inner classes in mind…
If you use UML as a coding developer tool you may expect no more than better objects ‘visualization’ for documentation, but the UML paradigms aim to cover more generic scopes. Components, interactions, systems, business rule for example.
With UML models you may create PIM and PMS trasformation (platform indipendent/specific models) but not handle in a ‘one-click-and-go’ java IO handling for instance or generic paradigms to code Java closures…

]]> By: gachik http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-815 gachik Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:02:58 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-815 I completely agree with you. I had a project to the university, where everything had to model in UML, after reading 2 books of reference on UML, I found completely ridiculous the existence of a graphic language as a tool for modelling. Sometimes gave me to think it had to be so difficult modeling software. I just write all the code and at the end I make the diagrams that I was requested. UML always seemed software vendor language. Worse, with UML I felt trapped. I have to decide that in life I will never use UML but for purposes of documentation. I completely agree with you. I had a project to the university, where everything had to model in UML, after reading 2 books of reference on UML, I found completely ridiculous the existence of a graphic language as a tool for modelling. Sometimes gave me to think it had to be so difficult modeling software. I just write all the code and at the end I make the diagrams that I was requested. UML always seemed software vendor language. Worse, with UML I felt trapped. I have to decide that in life I will never use UML but for purposes of documentation.

]]> By: missing http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-814 missing Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:02:03 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-814 UML should have remained nothing but a visual help to outline the framework of a complex program. It should have been kept much simpler than it is today. In that form, unfortunately it wouldn’t have required all that snake oil that is sold nowadays in the form of courses and modelling software. More than an Universal Modelling Language it has become an Ugly Meta-Language that promises to bridge the gap between the vague ideas of those corporate figures who are less technically inclined and the implementation itself. It doesn’t, but the management hasn’t figured out yet. UML should have remained nothing but a visual help to outline the
framework of a complex program. It should have been kept much simpler
than it is today. In that form, unfortunately it wouldn’t have
required all that snake oil that is sold nowadays in the form of
courses and modelling software.

More than an Universal Modelling Language it has become an Ugly
Meta-Language that promises to bridge the gap between the vague ideas
of those corporate figures who are less technically inclined and the
implementation itself. It doesn’t, but the management hasn’t figured
out yet.

]]> By: Artur Ejsmont http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-812 Artur Ejsmont Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:52:52 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-812 I liked the reasoning, nice article. Agree that just a few types of diagrams make sense and i guess its mostly to help you grasp bigger picture not to spawn tons of useless graphs. I think its a good thing to design stuff before you code it and basic graphs may actually help, but i agree, tools are crap and UML itself is overly complicated. Keeping it simple might help but if you really want to look professional during the meetings use full featured graphs ;- ) PS. captcha on this website sucks and fails my forms constantly! Art I liked the reasoning, nice article.

Agree that just a few types of diagrams make sense and i guess its mostly to help you grasp bigger picture not to spawn tons of useless graphs.

I think its a good thing to design stuff before you code it and basic graphs may actually help, but i agree, tools are crap and UML itself is overly complicated. Keeping it simple might help but if you really want to look professional during the meetings use full featured graphs ;- )

PS. captcha on this website sucks and fails my forms constantly!

Art

]]> By: kalabas http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/#comment-805 kalabas Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:28:15 +0000 http://littletutorials.com/?p=34#comment-805 As mentioned by a few people I think using UML to convey a high-level view of a software design and/or low-level views of complex/crucial part of a software or design patterns is valuable as compared to just showing code. I agree that trying to generate code from UML is overkill and would be equivalent to try to implement a software using diagrams instead of code which is not realistic in terms of expressive power / implementation details. Also I think people who “think in words” i.e. people who are the “auditory” type cannot be in their element when faced with UML diagrams. At the opposite people who “think in pictures” i.e. people who are the “visual” type will find UML valuable to help them understand a software design. I think UML, used with reason, can be a good communication tool but using it as a graphical object oriented programming language is not appropriate. As mentioned by a few people I think using UML to convey a high-level view of a software design and/or low-level views of complex/crucial part of a software or design patterns is valuable as compared to just showing code.
I agree that trying to generate code from UML is overkill and would be equivalent to try to implement a software using diagrams instead of code which is not realistic in terms of expressive power / implementation details.
Also I think people who “think in words” i.e. people who are the “auditory” type cannot be in their element when faced with UML diagrams. At the opposite people who “think in pictures” i.e. people who are the “visual” type will find UML valuable to help them understand a software design.
I think UML, used with reason, can be a good communication tool but using it as a graphical object oriented programming language is not appropriate.

]]>