Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Standard Design and Development Methodologies Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:27:11 -0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <9j25r6FpfU1@mid.individual.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="JCn9+dUdCQH+ycRezr2Sxw"; logging-data="17439"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DfQNvddLLxYRVC+1g2LENKKTm6V3oIEA=" X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ac8lAA6PA3U9hQu42S10shleR4c= Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:10178 On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:37:04 -0800, markspace <-@.> wrote: >On 11/22/2011 9:52 AM, Robert Klemme wrote: > >> On 21.11.2011 12:02, Arved Sandstrom wrote: [snip] >>> Diagrams have considerable merit to display information, and you may as >>> well use a standardized notation. UML is OK for that. But if you find >>> yourself struggling with the details of the notation, or the UML editor >>> is getting in your way, you're wasting your time. Too true. >> I strongly agree! Additional point: it may make sense to use non UML >> elements in an UML diagram from time to time to improve understanding. Yes. >> You can't do that with a string UML programming tool. >Agree that UML shouldn't be considered a straight-jacket. Unfortunately, UML often is a straitjacket. I used it while taking my degree. A few of the diagrams were useful, but they were just more formal versions of what I might do anyway. I dreaded diagramming, because it took so much time and did not help me much at all. I certainly would not use UML diagramming to help design a system. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko