Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #16112 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-07-19 13:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-08-02 01:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> - 2012-07-19 13:09 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2012-07-19 14:12 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Ivan The Not-So-Bad <1suf41n@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-19 21:47 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-19 18:00 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-07-19 14:35 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-19 17:58 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? David LaRue <huey.dll@gte.net> - 2012-07-19 22:22 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-07-19 17:41 -0500
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2012-07-19 23:29 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> - 2012-07-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-20 13:39 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-07-20 19:33 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-21 00:02 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-20 15:22 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2012-07-20 23:45 +0000
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-20 19:54 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-21 12:15 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-21 19:21 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-22 19:26 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-22 22:52 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-23 09:17 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 10:03 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-23 10:51 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 11:42 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-23 21:11 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 13:53 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-23 21:00 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 18:48 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-07-24 15:44 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 13:47 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-07-24 14:18 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 14:38 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 18:36 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 16:32 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 20:20 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 10:10 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 13:58 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 13:38 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 18:42 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-07-25 06:44 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 10:14 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2012-07-25 15:05 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:07 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 19:35 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 17:33 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 21:00 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-26 09:06 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-26 13:04 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-26 09:36 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-26 13:10 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-26 11:01 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-26 14:47 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-07-26 17:13 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-07-27 09:05 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-04 10:17 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-08-04 07:45 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-05 10:50 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2012-08-05 08:41 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? "John B. Matthews" <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-06 21:23 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-06 21:58 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-26 10:57 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-03 00:41 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 16:48 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-02 19:52 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 17:33 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Lew <noone@lewscanon.com> - 2012-07-25 06:41 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 10:38 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 18:42 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-24 16:35 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-24 20:07 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-24 17:36 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 10:22 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-25 10:57 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 13:41 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-25 13:44 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 14:34 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 18:46 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:10 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-30 14:59 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-30 19:55 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-02 23:41 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-08-02 18:31 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-25 15:54 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:11 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 19:30 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-25 18:49 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-25 16:13 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-26 09:16 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-27 13:21 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-27 09:16 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-27 21:02 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-27 13:47 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? markspace <-@.> - 2012-07-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? David Lamb <dalamb@cs.queensu.ca> - 2012-07-27 17:11 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-28 18:36 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-07-28 13:50 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-29 15:24 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-23 19:46 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> - 2012-07-23 18:49 -0700
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-23 22:59 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-23 19:40 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-20 19:51 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-21 19:16 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2012-07-21 19:49 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-23 03:28 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> - 2012-07-20 03:03 -0500
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2012-07-20 19:46 -0400
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> - 2012-07-21 18:59 +0200
Re: Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? R kamalakkannan <kamalakkannan.ney@gmail.com> - 2012-08-02 01:57 -0700
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 13:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Do C++ and Java professionals use UML?? |
| Message-ID | <7b5978a1-16bd-4700-acd8-b6446f5c3218@j4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
Every time I see newfangled gizmos like "UML diagrams' (which remind me of the old-fashioned flowcharts, NOT the best of tools, since it leads to spaghetti code) I can't help but remember the saying: - "Those who know, do. Those who don't manage". I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable to use UML? -Ramon
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <NK_Nr.50384$iI7.5699@newsfe03.iad> |
| In reply to | #16112 |
On 7/19/12 1:09 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote: > > Every time I see newfangled gizmos like "UML diagrams' (which remind > me of the old-fashioned flowcharts, NOT the best of tools, since it > leads to spaghetti code) I can't help but remember the saying: > > - "Those who know, do. Those who don't manage". > > I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable > to use UML? UML has been a round for a long time. I haven't ever really been educated in it, so I'm not sure if it adds value or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ivan The Not-So-Bad <1suf41n@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 21:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <50088060$0$44400$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #16113 |
On 2012-07-19, Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> wrote: > On 7/19/12 1:09 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote: >> >> Every time I see newfangled gizmos like "UML diagrams' (which remind >> me of the old-fashioned flowcharts, NOT the best of tools, since it >> leads to spaghetti code) I can't help but remember the saying: >> >> - "Those who know, do. Those who don't manage". >> >> I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable >> to use UML? > > UML has been a round for a long time. I haven't ever really been > educated in it, so I'm not sure if it adds value or not. > There's decent enough value in it to better understand complex systems. Being able to read UML of different types is a good base of knowledge to have. I definitely wouldn't use it for much beyond a better understanding of complex systems though
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 18:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5008838a$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16113 |
On 7/19/2012 5:12 PM, Daniel Pitts wrote: > On 7/19/12 1:09 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote: >> Every time I see newfangled gizmos like "UML diagrams' (which remind >> me of the old-fashioned flowcharts, NOT the best of tools, since it >> leads to spaghetti code) I can't help but remember the saying: >> >> - "Those who know, do. Those who don't manage". >> >> I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable >> to use UML? > > UML has been a round for a long time. I haven't ever really been > educated in it, so I'm not sure if it adds value or not. It adds value to describe IT systems using diagrams. It adds value to have a standard notation for such diagrams. UML is such a standard notation. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6e7331f-f099-420f-9bf0-2f493d01703b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #16112 |
Ramon F Herrera wrote: > Every time I see newfangled gizmos like "UML diagrams' (which remind I'm sorry, "newfangled"? "gizmo"? How do either of those terms apply to UML? > me of the old-fashioned flowcharts, NOT the best of tools, since it > leads to spaghetti code) I can't help but remember the saying: Au contraire, flowcharts and related tools lead to the elimination of spaghetti code. What is your evidence to the contrary? My evidence in favor is my experience with good diagrams (bad ones by definition won't help) that led to insights into how to optimize code, better code structure for readability and maintainability, and confirmation whether all possible input conditions were handled. > - "Those who know, do. Those who don't manage". Which is actually bullshit. Disempowering bullshit, at that. > I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable > to use UML? When you need diagrams in a structured software-development environment, particularly when such diagrams will be part of a permanent documentation set. Also useful when the team is large or the time scale long, which conditions often correlate to the need for permanent documentation sets. -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 17:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5008830f$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16112 |
On 7/19/2012 4:09 PM, Ramon F. Herrera wrote: > Every time I see newfangled gizmos like "UML diagrams' (which remind > me of the old-fashioned flowcharts, NOT the best of tools, since it > leads to spaghetti code) I can't help but remember the saying: > > - "Those who know, do. Those who don't manage". > > I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable > to use UML? Anytime you need to do a diagram that can be done via UML. And that would be most non-trivial software projects. Arne PS: UML is from 1997 so it is not new.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David LaRue <huey.dll@gte.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA095BADC55998507d764ee9285@178.63.61.145> |
| In reply to | #16112 |
"Ramon F. Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> wrote in news:7b5978a1-16bd-4700- acd8-b6446f5c3218@j4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com: > > Every time I see newfangled gizmos like "UML diagrams' (which remind > me of the old-fashioned flowcharts, NOT the best of tools, since it > leads to spaghetti code) I can't help but remember the saying: > > - "Those who know, do. Those who don't manage". > > I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable > to use UML? > > -Ramon It would be advisable to use a UML diagram when discussing how classes of objects relate to each other, there is a need for a formal document, and the group of people that will use the document understand UML diagrams. David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 17:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Eq-dnb__RPG3EJXNnZ2dnUVZ7sWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #16112 |
In comp.lang.java.programmer Ramon F. Herrera <ramon@conexus.net> wrote: > > I guess my question should be: Under what circumstances is advisable > to use UML? When it helps you to think and reason about the system you're developing and when it helps to communicate information about the system to other people working on it. The above might sound glib, but it really is an honest answer. The particulars of when those conditions occurs is going to depend on you, your coworkers, your tools, the size and complexity and domain of the system and the organization and business culture the work's being done in. -- Leif Roar Moldskred
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-19 23:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lluh08lnc655tiu1mo4972oddebc3ciss2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16124 |
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:41:46 -0500, Leif Roar Moldskred <leifm@dimnakorr.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said : > >When it helps you to think and reason about the system you're developing >and when it helps to communicate information about the system to other >people working on it. I think the biggest problem comes with keeping it up to date. This is extra work, but without it the diagrams are worse than useless. -- Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products http://mindprod.com The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. ~ Dr. Albert A. Bartlett (born: 1923-03-21 age: 89) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fredrik Jonson <fredrik@jonson.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-20 07:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnk0i1f5.fbk.fredrik@scout.jonson.org> |
| In reply to | #16137 |
In <lluh08lnc655tiu1mo4972oddebc3ciss2@4ax.com> Roedy Green wrote: > I think the biggest problem [of UML] comes with keeping it up > to date. The more expensive UML tools have round trip engineering which makes keeping it up to date with code less of a hassle. My limited experience with round trip engineering is that has its own weakness; it picks up all minor parts of the code too, including things that are not necessarily is important to get the main picture of the design. Still, as others already mentioned, it is convenient to have a common design language that is not implementation specific, and that is known by most programmers out there. That's the strength of UML. Never mind the fancy tools, which gets in your way, UML is first and foremost valuable as a language to communicate design among your peers. Myself, I mostly use class diagrams and sequence diagrams to introduce a design to other developers. In most cases the diagrams never go further than a whiteboard. When I have to, I use Umlet to persist them too. -- Fredrik Jonson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-20 13:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a6subnFf45U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16139 |
On 20.07.2012 09:16, Fredrik Jonson wrote: > In <lluh08lnc655tiu1mo4972oddebc3ciss2@4ax.com> Roedy Green wrote: > >> I think the biggest problem [of UML] comes with keeping it up >> to date. > > The more expensive UML tools have round trip engineering which makes > keeping it up to date with code less of a hassle. My limited experience > with round trip engineering is that has its own weakness; it picks up all > minor parts of the code too, including things that are not necessarily is > important to get the main picture of the design. Graphical programming (what these round trip tools promise to be able to do) does not work. The mere fact that you need to have every part of the code in the diagram leads to diagram overload. One of the important tasks when creating diagrams (not only UML) is to select what needs to be shown and how it needs to be shown. This is something a human needs to do. It cannot be automated. Normally to understand a system only a few classes need to be depicted and not with every detail (method, data member etc.). Updating diagrams with every changed detail is tedious and useless because it does not improve understanding. Often the basic relationships between classes remain the same because they are at the heart of the design. And btw., roundtrip tools don't help much with updating diagrams which are sitting in text documents. That still has to be done manually - unless someone invents a system which manages everything (code and documentation). But then it would still need a human being to decide whether a new sub class should show up on a particular diagram or not. My preferred tool is Visio with the free available set of UML stencils. This makes creating UML diagrams easy (because all the elements are there) but retains enough flexibility to mix in other information as needed. > Still, as others already mentioned, it is convenient to have a common > design language that is not implementation specific, and that is known by > most programmers out there. That's the strength of UML. Never mind the > fancy tools, which gets in your way, UML is first and foremost valuable > as a language to communicate design among your peers. I couldn't agree more. > Myself, I mostly use class diagrams and sequence diagrams to introduce a > design to other developers. In most cases the diagrams never go further > than a whiteboard. When I have to, I use Umlet to persist them too. I use these diagram types in decreasing (estimated) frequency: - class - activity - state - sequence rarely: - object - deployment Kind regards robert -- remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-20 19:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jucbq7$lg6$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #16143 |
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:39:20 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote:
> And btw., roundtrip tools don't help much with updating diagrams which
> are sitting in text documents. That still has to be done manually -
> unless someone invents a system which manages everything (code and
> documentation). But then it would still need a human being to decide
> whether a new sub class should show up on a particular diagram or not.
>
I've only ever seen one that did. It came out of a UK University but
never seems to have come to anything. Its 'presentation face' mixed
textual documentation and code fragments in a similar fashion to K&R or
(better) Kernighan & Pike, while still keeping the ability to maintain
the text without interfering with the code and to develop and compile the
code without screwing up the overall look and feel of the 'presentation
face'. I can't remember how it dealt with diagrammatic material. I
thought it had a lot of promise though it was probably not a much higher-
level tool that Javadocs.
My main objection to all theses methodologies is that the documentation
is usually stored and maintained separately from the code, which to me
means that it isn't going to be maintained. As I've said before, the big
advantage, as I see it, of Javadocs is that at least there's a good
chance that module-level documentation will be maintained as the code
gets modified.
Its a pity there isn't anything similar for a system's higher level
documentation like, for instance a combination source repository and data
dictionary, but the nearest I've seen to a decent attempt at that was the
long-defunct ICL Advanced Data Dictionary with its four quadrant
structure, version control and linkages between the quadrants:
processes | entities
data and | attributes
control flow | relationships
---------------------------------------
programs | schemas
pipelines | storage schemas
process management | tables
This could generate project documentation and code (both DDS and program
source) and manage version control across an entire system.
--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-21 00:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a6u2riF3fuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16161 |
On 20.07.2012 21:38, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> writes:
>> My main objection to all theses methodologies is that the documentation
>> is usually stored and maintained separately from the code, which to me
>> means that it isn't going to be maintained.
>
> IIRC, Doxygen generates docs from the source code and has an
> extension or an option that will also generate some UML diagrams
> from the source code.
It has the same limitation as any other tool which generates diagrams
from source code: it cannot automatically add information needed for
proper diagram placement etc. The point is that laying out a diagram is
a creative task and diagrams are not just another representation of the
code. A properly crafted diagram adds information to what is present in
the code.
> And then, what answer would a /professional/ give to the question
> »Do you use UML?«? I think a /professional/ answer would be:
> »Whenever I am paid (sufficiently) to do this.«
That does not sound like an answer of a software development
professional - it reminds me more of a professional contract killer.
You make it sound like doing UML diagrams was something tedious or
distasteful which needs additional payment for compensation. ("We're a
code shop only. If you need diagrams that'll cost you extra bucks.")
Rather the needs of the task at hand should dictate whether a diagram is
in order or not.
Cheers
robert
--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-20 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <p8ydnXRrI_ygR5TNnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #16165 |
On 7/20/2012 3:02 PM, Robert Klemme wrote: > On 20.07.2012 21:38, Stefan Ram wrote: >> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> writes: >>> My main objection to all theses methodologies is that the documentation >>> is usually stored and maintained separately from the code, which to me >>> means that it isn't going to be maintained. >> >> IIRC, Doxygen generates docs from the source code and has an >> extension or an option that will also generate some UML diagrams >> from the source code. > > It has the same limitation as any other tool which generates diagrams > from source code: it cannot automatically add information needed for > proper diagram placement etc. The point is that laying out a diagram is > a creative task and diagrams are not just another representation of the > code. A properly crafted diagram adds information to what is present in > the code. If anything, it is more important to remove information. A diagram with a box for each tree is not a good way of communicating the structure of a forest. Patricia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-20 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jucqje$pth$1@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #16166 |
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:22:52 -0700, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 7/20/2012 3:02 PM, Robert Klemme wrote: >> On 20.07.2012 21:38, Stefan Ram wrote: >>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> writes: >>>> My main objection to all theses methodologies is that the >>>> documentation is usually stored and maintained separately from the >>>> code, which to me means that it isn't going to be maintained. >>> >>> IIRC, Doxygen generates docs from the source code and has an >>> extension or an option that will also generate some UML diagrams >>> from the source code. >> >> It has the same limitation as any other tool which generates diagrams >> from source code: it cannot automatically add information needed for >> proper diagram placement etc. The point is that laying out a diagram >> is a creative task and diagrams are not just another representation of >> the code. A properly crafted diagram adds information to what is >> present in the code. > > If anything, it is more important to remove information. A diagram with > a box for each tree is not a good way of communicating the structure of > a forest. > +1 -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-20 19:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5009efa8$0$282$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16166 |
On 7/20/2012 6:22 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > If anything, it is more important to remove information. A diagram with > a box for each tree is not a good way of communicating the structure of > a forest. Yes. Someone smart once said that insight is not about collecting information but about throwing away information. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-21 12:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <a6vdptF3n7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #16166 |
On 07/21/2012 12:22 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 7/20/2012 3:02 PM, Robert Klemme wrote: >> On 20.07.2012 21:38, Stefan Ram wrote: >>> Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> writes: >>>> My main objection to all theses methodologies is that the documentation >>>> is usually stored and maintained separately from the code, which to me >>>> means that it isn't going to be maintained. >>> >>> IIRC, Doxygen generates docs from the source code and has an >>> extension or an option that will also generate some UML diagrams >>> from the source code. >> >> It has the same limitation as any other tool which generates diagrams >> from source code: it cannot automatically add information needed for >> proper diagram placement etc. The point is that laying out a diagram is >> a creative task and diagrams are not just another representation of the >> code. A properly crafted diagram adds information to what is present in >> the code. > > If anything, it is more important to remove information. A diagram with > a box for each tree is not a good way of communicating the structure of > a forest. Right. It's both: adding and removing, but the point remains the same: this is a task which cannot be automated. Kind regards robert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wanja Gayk <brixomatic@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-21 19:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.2a750366f840dde98971e@202.177.16.121> |
| In reply to | #16179 |
In article <a6vdptF3n7U1@mid.individual.net>, shortcutter@googlemail.com says... > Right. It's both: adding and removing, but the point remains the same: > this is a task which cannot be automated. Of course the user wants to make the diagram look as he likes to. That's why a good tool will store metadata, so the diagram generation will not mess up what the user has already "sorted", when (re)generating a diagram from the source. Kind regards, Wanja -- ..Alesi's problem was that the back of the car was jumping up and down dangerously - and I can assure you from having been teammate to Jean Alesi and knowing what kind of cars that he can pull up with, when Jean Alesi says that a car is dangerous - it is. [Jonathan Palmer] --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gene Wirchenko <genew@ocis.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-22 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m8dp08hrsk48p3kj5g47uso1gpp1qrh603@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #16165 |
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:02:08 +0200, Robert Klemme
<shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> And then, what answer would a /professional/ give to the question
>> »Do you use UML?«? I think a /professional/ answer would be:
>> »Whenever I am paid (sufficiently) to do this.«
>
>That does not sound like an answer of a software development
>professional - it reminds me more of a professional contract killer.
>You make it sound like doing UML diagrams was something tedious or
>distasteful which needs additional payment for compensation. ("We're a
>code shop only. If you need diagrams that'll cost you extra bucks.")
>Rather the needs of the task at hand should dictate whether a diagram is
>in order or not.
I have not found formal diagramming to be very useful. I had to
document using UML diagrams in some of my uni courses. I generally
did them *after* I wrote the code. Creating them required a bunch of
fiddling to make them come out clear. They were a time sink and did
not add anything to my understanding of the system.
OTOH, in-line code documentation I wrote as I coded. That stuff
was useful.
User documentation was stright-forward typing. I did that after
coding using bits of code as needed.
I can understand someone not wanting to do things that do not
help do the job. Avoid needless work.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-07-22 22:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <500cbc5d$0$295$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #16244 |
On 7/22/2012 10:26 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 00:02:08 +0200, Robert Klemme
> <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> And then, what answer would a /professional/ give to the question
>>> »Do you use UML?«? I think a /professional/ answer would be:
>>> »Whenever I am paid (sufficiently) to do this.«
>>
>> That does not sound like an answer of a software development
>> professional - it reminds me more of a professional contract killer.
>> You make it sound like doing UML diagrams was something tedious or
>> distasteful which needs additional payment for compensation. ("We're a
>> code shop only. If you need diagrams that'll cost you extra bucks.")
>> Rather the needs of the task at hand should dictate whether a diagram is
>> in order or not.
>
> I have not found formal diagramming to be very useful.
That is not surprising given the below.
> I had to
> document using UML diagrams in some of my uni courses. I generally
> did them *after* I wrote the code.
Which is wrong.
> Creating them required a bunch of
> fiddling to make them come out clear.
Most good things require some work.
> They were a time sink and did
> not add anything to my understanding of the system.
Maybe.
But given that the purpose of the UML is to give other a better
understanding of the system not so relevant.
> I can understand someone not wanting to do things that do not
> help do the job. Avoid needless work.
But before concluding about whether it helps or are useless it is
necessary to understand why and how it is done.
Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web