Are Reports of UML's Demise Being Exaggerated?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

edi...@uml-forum.com

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 12:24:42 AM6/3/08
to UMLf...@googlegroups.com, sysml...@googlegroups.com
May 15, 2008. - Are Reports of UML's Demise Being Exaggerated?
In an article entitled "13 reasons for UML's descent into darkness" Daniel Pietraru claims that "UML [has] lost the programmers." The author suggests that UML is becoming irrelevant to programmers due to causes that include design-by-committee syndrome, vendor greed, and concept bloat. Is UML usage waning or waxing? Is the quest for Round-Trip Engineering suffering a major setback? You can add your opinions to others discussing Pietraru's article on the "little tutorials" web site: http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/

H. S. Lahman

unread,
Jun 3, 2008, 11:12:21 AM6/3/08
to UMLf...@googlegroups.com, sysml...@googlegroups.com
Responding to editor...

> May 15, 2008. - Are Reports of UML's Demise Being Exaggerated?
> In an article entitled "13 reasons for UML's descent into darkness" Daniel Pietraru claims that "UML [has] lost the programmers." The author suggests that UML is becoming irrelevant to programmers due to causes that include design-by-committee syndrome, vendor greed, and concept bloat. Is UML usage waning or waxing? Is the quest for Round-Trip Engineering suffering a major setback? You can add your opinions to others discussing Pietraru's article on the "little tutorials" web site: http://littletutorials.com/2008/05/15/13-reasons-for-umls-descent-into-darkness/
>

Don't waste your time. For the agile OOP-based crowd UML represents BDUF
and Waterfall, which they see as the Great Satans of software
development. So they have been repeating these mantras for years. Don't
go down the rabbit hole by responding because it is a religious issue
for the Programming By Mantra crowd. For example, $nevermind that the
agile OOP-based processes all have well-defined waterfall processes at
the story and code fragment levels.

[Such discussions remind me of Haight-Ashbury coffee houses in the late
'60s. Someone takes a drag and proclaims something like, "Power to the
People!". To which there would be several responses like, "Yeah, man!",
"Right on!", and "You got it, man!" If some outsider was crass enough to
ask, "What power? What people?", that triggers another round of mantras
like, "The Power of Freedom!" and "Everyone being crushed by the
Establishment!". If the outsider continues the Quixotic quest for
substance, the ultimate chorus is, "You just don't get it!" and "You are
the Problem!" Been there; done that; grew up.]

FWIW, it is hard to see UML going away since it is currently the only
general purpose 4GL around. Anyone who believes that software
development is going to stagnate at the 3GL level should visit a local
retirement home and talk to some of the BAL developers of the '50s.

--
There is nothing wrong with me that could
not be cured by a capful of Drano.

H. S. Lahman
h...@pathfindermda.com
Pathfinder Solutions
http://www.pathfindermda.com
blog: http://pathfinderpeople.blogs.com/hslahman
"Model-Based Translation: The Next Step in Agile Development". Email
in...@pathfindermda.com for your copy.
Pathfinder is hiring: http://www.pathfindermda.com/about_us/careers_pos3.php.
(888)OOA-PATH

nioski

unread,
Jul 17, 2008, 4:13:50 AM7/17/08
to UML Forum
In UML, L stands for Language, so saying that UML is descending into
darkness is like saying that English is descending into darkness...

My opinion is that UML (expecially in 2.0) has tried to cover too many
subjects and that is wrong.

But if
- you know it and
- use it with experience and
- accordingly to the situation,
it is still a great tool.
I’d say somehow the *only* real one in most sw application
developments.

Ken Lloyd

unread,
Jul 17, 2008, 11:48:43 AM7/17/08
to UMLf...@googlegroups.com
Interesting! How can a language cover too many subjects?

Looking back to when I was one year old, if I had known how hard English was
to learn, I would have stayed with babbling ;)

Of course, now I speak something akin to English, and model in something
akin to the UML. I find both quite natural and easy. The purists might
argue with me that I'm doing it wrong. But I get consistent results and
found it a very powerful tool. Until I find a language that presents a
potential to exceed those results, it's UML for me. Notice, I'm not using
E-R or IDEF any more.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: UMLf...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:UMLf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of nioski
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:14 AM
> To: UML Forum
> Subject: [UML Forum] Re: Are Reports of UML's Demise Being
> Exaggerated?
>
>

nioski

unread,
Jul 17, 2008, 12:18:52 PM7/17/08
to UML Forum
> Interesting! How can a language cover too many subjects?
...
> Until I find a language that presents a
> potential to exceed those results, it's UML for me.  Notice, I'm not using
> E-R or IDEF any more.

What can I say... I guess you're damn right on this one
:-)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages