Slashdot Log In
UML Fever
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Apr 12, 2004 08:02 AM
from the hot-hot-hot-tonight dept.
from the hot-hot-hot-tonight dept.
CowboyRobot writes "Queue has a couple of articles about UML:
Death by UML Fever by Boeing software architect Alex Bell
describes the problems that can result from over-reliance on modeling tools, with lighthearted lessons for the software development process in general and numerous illuminating quotations, such as: "Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment. - Jim Horning."
Then, one of the developers of UML, Grady Booch of IBM, follows with The Fever is Real, in which he explains the motivations for creating the language, how it's used today, and where he expects it to go soon."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Acronyms (Score:3, Funny)
True linux-focussed geeks would have immediately wondered why user-mode linux was suddenly such a hot topic, and so dangerous to boot
Simon
Re:Acronyms (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only person, that finds all those oh-so-funny usermode-linux jokes really not-so-funny?
Re: Everything, including tools, in moderation! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is true, but note that the UML/patterns/OO newbie is in no position to determine that. One common mistake is to read the book, discard the parts you don't think is necessary, and then proceed with your design work. The rules that you chose to ignore were put there by pretty smart people, and there's a good chance they were put there for a good reason. When the design finally fails because you were missing something, the egotistical designer then blames the method.
The point is, I think the parent post was suggesting that the programmers in question may simply have broken the rules, and not actually found some instance where the methods really apply poorly. It's ego-boosting to think that what you do is unique and beyond the reach of old stuffy rules, but the truth is that most of us are doing things that have been done before.
This isn't to say that those cases don't exist, but that they're probably rarer than you think, especially if your team of programmers is trying it out for the first time, especially if you don't have a senior engineer already experienced in the method guiding your team. For the first time, at least, the instructions should be followed to the letter and strictly enforced. They should be dogma until you've at least went through a complete product life cycle with them.
What you suggest we've already tried for decades. The result is prevasively poor documentation and fragile designs.
Re: Everything, including tools, in moderation! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also I think he's driving at another point: you should only model as much as you need to. I think modeling is useful to help everyone understand how the system works but it's not always necessary to model every behavior before you continue with the project.
Parent
Re: Everything, including tools, in moderation! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: Everything, including tools, in moderation! (Score:5, Insightful)
I see here a reaction to something I'd noted myself: for a number of developers, OO ceases to be a tool in the toolbag and becomes their religion -- they want to evangelize all of the unconverted, and strive to see every aspect of life through the OO lens. The book I'm reading right now contains some side-splitting examples of using the OO sledgehammer to crack a programming peanut, and I'm sorry to say that in my experience this practice is not confined to tutorial material.
There's a step that comes before "what's the best way to code this?" It's "what's the best way to *design* this?"
Parent
Re: Everything, including tools, in moderation! (Score:5, Insightful)
...and when the method fails the snake-oil salesmen blame the implementation of that method. UML bigots are exactly like Extreme Programming bigots; they believe the tool is a panacea, so any failure when using it must be the result of not using it properly. It's a great way to count all the hits and ignore all the misses, and for people who couldn't make a buck by selling drawing programs as drawing programs to make a buck by selling them as something much grander.
Parent
Software architect? (Score:5, Funny)
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization"
Re:Software architect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The leading building corporation would proclaim that there's nothing wrong with the buildings and a new market of woodpecker traps and anti woodpecker missiles would thrive.
Parent
I've gotten spams about these (Score:5, Funny)
I've already gotten spams about these products concerning software woodpeckers. In fact, I got one this morning that had a title "SOLVE YOUR SOFT PECKER PROBLEMS"
Parent
Re:Software architect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be thankful of the fact we've (as humans) have been building shelter for 20000+ years.
As software developers, we've been making stuff for a little over 50 years.
We are In the MudHut age of Software Development:
Garrett's Rule #3: "MudHut software" We are continually re-writing software that performs the functionality we require, simply to make the software run on the platform that we rewrote, so that we can make better software.
You see, 20,000 years ago, our clever, but inexperienced ancestors had to make new shelter every few days/months/years/whatever, simply because they made them from mud.
When the next wind, rain or hail came, it outdated their technology, and forced them to upgrade.
took thousands of years to make the difference, an build structures that could stand up to the changing environment.
So, just when it looks like MS will rule the desktop forever, just remember, while some clever frickin' caveman probably added the first straw and dung to his hut, and improved it, it never lasted. Cooler heads prevailed.
Now, for those who didn't catch it: I just compared MS products to shit and straw.
Thanks,
Parent
Don't knock mud 'till you've tried it! (Score:5, Insightful)
> inexperienced ancestors had to make new shelter
> every few days/months/years/whatever, simply
> because they made them from mud.
Buildings made of mud (in adobe brick or rammed earth construction, as it is called these days) are much sturdier than the frame matchbox you are living in. In fact, rammed earth walls are so durable that some of them are still standing after 5000 years of rain/wind/hail etc. And they are more energy efficient too.
Parent
Re:Yup, it is better against earthquakes too. (Score:5, Informative)
15,000 recently dead Iranians dispute that claim.
Granted, you can build earthworks that are stable with modern technology, using metal and concrete reinforcements and a better knowledge of materials science.
And one day, software engineers might be able to write a pile of C++ that doesn't fall down when pushed.
Parent
Re:Software architect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason most software is late, over budget, and buggy is because the specs are not what the customer wants. Customers understand that when they are buildng a house, that the blueprints are of utmost importance, and that the blueprints are going to reflect the house that they are going to build, and go to great lengths to visualize the house depicted in the blueprints. They also have an understanding of building concepts, and know that they can not wait until the bathroom is finished, and then say "hey, I want the tub over on the other side of the room" without understanding that the bathroom will essentially have to be gutted. These same people will have no problem demanding significant overhauls of the layout of a gui or the basic fundamental requirements of the software. From my experience, customers will often blow right through a spec document, browsing it, and saying OK looks great! What is worse is, the more detailed (hence boring) the spec is, the less likely the customer is to really look at it. Begging, pleading, blackmailing, and torturing customers to read the specs is rarely effective, the best solution IMHO is the XP method of letting the customers see things as early as possible.
This leads to another problem- software growing in scope and function well beyond its original intentions. People inherently understand that you can not take a basic mudhut or woodframe house and just keep adding to it indefinitely and still have a coherent structure- there is only so much the foundation can support, and only so much you can do to a house before you have to major extensive rennovations. The same thing occurs with software. Customers often say, "we like this, but we would really like this feature," and management will almost always cave in and say sure! Next thing you know, the system has a large patchwork of add-ons that sometimes have to be hacked in and make the code difficult to maintain, and make it even more rigid. People dont take trailers or sheds and try to make them into colonial two story homes, but they will often try to take simple reporting tools and make them into comprehensive organization wide information dashboards, one report or feature at a time.
Design Patterns and frameworks try to attack the problem by telling us how to build even sheds with concrete and steel foundations, and modularized/interchangable parts so that further additions do not cause too many problems, which is a good thing. But until there is a universal general understanding of the software development process by the customers, these problems will persist in software, and the industry itself.
Parent
Programmers don't build programs (Score:5, Insightful)
Programmers are NOT to programs what builders are to buildings.
Programmers are to programs what ARCHITECTS are to buildings.
Builders are to buildings what COMPILERS AND MAKE UTILITIES are to programs.
Now, I suggest that you make an architect work under the same constraints as a programmer:
1) I cannot tell you were the house will be built, so you cannot estimate heating/cooling, snow loads, etc. Can't it figure it out itself?
2) I cannot tell you that the house won't be moved to a completely different climate once built - can't you make it automatically adjust?
3) I cannot tell you what building materials will be available to build the house with. Can't you make your design work just as well with wood as with adobe?
4) I cannot tell you how many rooms will be needed. Can't the house automatically add rooms as needed?
5) I cannot tell you what services, such as electricity, water, and gas, will be available. Can't you make the house work just as well on wind power as grid power?
6) I can tell you that whatever I told you is subject to change without notice.
7) Oh, by the way, now that the house is almost designed - Add a hanger. No, I will NOT tell you whether the hanger is for a Cessna 182 or a 747 - can't you make the hanger figure that out when I park the plane?
8) Oh, the house cannot cost more than US$10,000.
9) Oh, and the house must be build on a quarter-acre lot.
10) Oh, and the house must be ready to move in tomorrow. Morning. Before I go to work.
11) Oh, and the house must be built by two dain-bramaged monkeys with Nerf Tools.
12) Did I mention being earthquake-proof?
13) Oh, the lot is in a floodplain. Can you make it water-tight? Or float? Or both?
14) Hey, how about a houseboat?
Parent
Re:Programmers don't build programs (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the problem is not having a concrete set of requirements to begin with.
It's worse than that. The problem is that, for all but the most trivial of problems, you can't have a concrete set of requirements.
If you could have a concrete set of requirements that would unambiguously result in code that met the customer's needs, then you could automate the process of turning the requirements into code. In other words, the requirements would be code.
As much as management would love to be able to automate the process of turning requirments into code, they can't. Nor can they even create a process that someone can follow to turn requirements into code (if you could, you could automate following the process and not need the programmer).
The bottom line is, you can't ever have a complete set of requirements. The best thing to do is to get over it and not work under fictional processes that assume you can ("If only we could get the requirements frozen, then we could ship on time"). Requirements change because writing code teaches the programmers and the business that the requirements were unimplementable in the time required, or that they don't actually meet the needs of the business. That's ok. It better be, because that's reality.
Parent
Re:Programmers don't build programs (Score:4, Interesting)
Neither of the following examples involved me, but I was an interested contemporaneous observer of both.
Case study #1: Web application (buying portal). The app was designed with J2EE tools, and the Architect allowed the tools to automagically generate the schema that supported the app. Problem: The Architect did not consider that reports would need to be generated from the schema, some day. When it came time to write them, the task was horrific and nearly impossible, and the team almost failed. Who is guilty, management, for not specifying all the reports up front, or the architect, for not anticipating the need for reporting? The Architect, of course, blamed management; management, naturally, blamed the Architect.
Case study #2: A very arge commercial bank wanted a system for loan portfolio analysis. The Architect endured management displeasure over his long-ish timeline by designing a pseudo-language first, in which the team ultimately wrote the portfolio analysis package. The Architect did this because he envisioned massive downstream changes to the specification. Numerous changes to the specification then occurred over a two-year period, just as the Architect had predicted. Result: The Architect's company pocketed huge sums by bidding half of what the competition bid on the same project, and incurring almost zero cost, because the pseudo-language changes were so trivial to make.
Parent
Re:Software architect? (Score:3, Insightful)
I work with a couple of civil engineers and in a previous life I did some IT work at a construction company. What this has taught me is that Weinberg's Law was thought up by people who never stepped onto a construction site.
Yes, there is a lot more formalized rules and many more years of experience in the construction industry, but people are still people and they get lazy and cut corners just like in any industry.
I guess what I am trying to say is that we can learn a lot from t
UML (Score:3, Interesting)
I should imagine the designers wouldn't be very good at it, and I should imagine that programmers would have better ways to express themselves.
Sorry, this has just been a question I've wanted to know the answer to. And the story has been
Re:UML (Score:5, Informative)
I should imagine the designers wouldn't be very good at it, and I should imagine that programmers would have better ways to express themselves.
Actually a good designer probably has some experience coding. As to who uses it? Well ideally the designer or project leader should author it and the programmers should be able to read and understand it, so both parties technically use it.
Parent
Re:UML (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally (speaking from 12 years of experience) found UML useful in many situations when certain (already coded) solution was presented to someone else. So just to illustrate some point, it is much easier to sketch a few diagrams than to write a textual description.
On the other hand I have seen environments where the UML was adopted as sort of cornerstone of top-down approach: all the design is done first and captured in UML. The problem is that disagrams become absolete very quickly and people stop referring to them which accelerates the decay even more.
Parent
Re:UML (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:UML (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:UML (Score:3, Informative)
Who uses UML? The designers or the programmers?
Almost everyone in a development project. Designers, programmers, testers, etc. Even management and your customer can underst
Re:UML (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the idea of UML is that this framework allows for people of different roles to converse in a common modelling language.
A business/product person will easily understand Use Case and high level sequence diagrams.
A product architect/designer is able to transform these use cases and sequence diagrams into "lower level requirements" - more sequence diagrams, state diagrams, and define the IDL interfaces rela
Re:UML (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, the programmers who are stuck with this static UML framework, while the timeline, user and system requirements are changing, are put in a precarious situation where the design just doesn't work anymore, and often the project crumbles.
Back to the Architects, who claim there design was adequate for the problem, and they don't understand how the project failed. Must be the programmers.
Parent
Re:UML (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily, I'd argue otherwise.
One of the way to make this work is to bring Xtreme Programming from coding to designing too.
For example, you design this side of the interface, I design the other side of the interface. And then, I implement this side of the interface that you had design, and you implement the other side of the interface that I had design.
So, you see, the designer and program
Re:UML (Score:4, Interesting)
UML still suffers from some of that: filled arrowheads vs. stick arrowheads, for example. Arrows do inherently express a relationship (at least to me,) but neither filled nor hollow represents "synchronous" vs "asynchronous". The UML is an 800 page standard, of which about 750 pages are useless detail fluff of this nature. Yet they're all "part of the standard" and thus are all equally important, at least to the AR+ people who religiously push these things. I understand that if you want to precisely express an idea that you should use the precise syntax in the language. But practical use of UML shouldn't require knowing all 800 pages, just as writing practical C++ code doesn't require an intimate knowledge of templates.
Please don't dismiss me immediately as a UML critic (or a template critic!) One of the places that I find it of value is that it gives us developers a common ground on which to meet the analysts and business users. But much of the syntax is simply too cryptic to be of real working value in expressing ideas. And if you look at developers as the "compilers" of UML (the people who have to interpret it into code) we would have to know every last comma of the standard to perfectly implement it. Not a realistic assessment.
Parent
Designs cast in Stone (Score:5, Interesting)
I found a significant design flaw with a pattern that they were using everywhere and raised it as an issue. Turns out they knew about the flaw but didn't want to fix it since they would have to redo all their UML diagrams for the bulk of the project.
Then they had the nerve to ask me to signoff on the design. Further they had the nerve to ask me to use UML on my next project!
UML is really great for communication of designs. But if you invest too much into the UML you end up "coding" the proposed design and it becomes too hard to modify.
Where UML really shines is in HUGE projects, where systems analysts design the system in UML and programmers write the code. Anything else it's a little bit of overkill and a little dangerous.
Re:Designs cast in Stone (Score:5, Interesting)
UML is perfect for HUGE projects where you have a large number of developers, designers and managers all of whom must understand what is going to be delivered.
Everything smaller should be interface driven. That is, you do storyboards and interface mockups as the next step after the requirements specs. THEN you give those mockups to the programmers and tell them to implement it.
This tends to result in the best quality programs because it comes from a user-centred point of view rather than a programming point of view.
This is how you explain the difference between OSX (top down) versus Linux (bottom up) approach to developing the OS.
Parent
Re:UML for HUGE projects. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Designs cast in Stone (Score:5, Insightful)
With a good UML tool it should be very easy to make changes. UML is worthless if you are not making changes to the models. Indeed if your UML is set in stone you should throw those stone tablets away.
UML used correctly is a good tool for getting your design down. Print that design poster size and hang it on your wall so you can at a glance see the design! However from several years of using UML I have discovered that you re-print that poster at least once a week because it goes out of date that quickly, and last weeks poster is useless. (even though that change is minor you can assume your work for the week will be based on the parts you changed)
Parent
Booch - there was nothing before he came along? (Score:3, Informative)
Has anyone ever worked with anyone who is totally focussed on the UML? We've had to get rid of them as they don't contribute anything except endless debates and meetings that are way too long. Sometimes you have to deliver stuff. I bet he missed that bit while he was writing papers about how revolutionary he is.
Ground Realities (Score:5, Insightful)
When these overlooked potential pitfalls, start to pust the project dates further and further away, the entire s/w development cycle is compromised and lot of design work is bypassed. Most of the functionality is directly coded from the requirement specs, bypassing all the UML stuff.
And there is the issue of Change management, Over the lifetime of a project , lot of staff changes including developers and designers, and the documentation and UML stuff starts to lag behind the current implementations. There comes a time when the UML diagrams represention is no where near the current functionality of the Code.
Having worked on two very long maintainace projects for very rich clients , I can tell you that initial project delivery is only the tip of the ice burgh. The real deal is maintaining and upgrading the project over a long time, and sadly UML is very inadequate for that.
From a developer's POV , who needs to work on someone else's code ,Nothing and really Nothing is as useful as proper comments in a code.
Re:Ground Realities (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience that means the requirements have changed (feature creep, which kills many projects), or the implementation design wasn't done properly in the first place. You have to do the thinking at some point, and I would rather do as much as possible before I'm stuck in to the code. The code becomes easier to write, and the changes to the architecture are easier to make. Short sweet prototypes du
Boring, but true story (Score:5, Interesting)
The moral: There are no magic bullets.
Re:Boring, but true story (Score:4, Insightful)
This is unfortunate..
There are many reason why projects fail, so I do not want to speculate. But my favourite is Anti-Patterns in Project Management (review) [niwotridge.com]
If it is a major design flaw discovered late, then this really sucks, especially if it is due to lack of foresights or experiences.. But hey, that is how we gain experiences.
Actually my experience tells me that UML can be very suitable for fast prototyping. And one of the lethal combination for success, in my opinion is UML+IDL+CORBA(Java)+eXtreme Programming.
It can be quite amazing how a prototyping team can churned out results, with the help of everything good, like generated skeletons, and stubs, and it helped us to get something very functional up and running, and then allows for subsequent iterative improvements that is almost transparent to the users, even changes implementation between C++ and Java. Of course, not forgetting dedicated engineers and everyone's commitment.
Parent
UML and OO (Score:3, Interesting)
One facility I think is particularly absent from UML is modelling of error conditions. In most cases it's awkward to indicate that an error might exist and how to handle it if does occur. Also, UML notation seems incredibly basic (gulp!) and simply can't tackle algorithmic modelling for complex applications like memory management or software interrupt handling in an operating system.
If not already underway, the open source community should step forward and come up with a more advanced alternative to UML and then perhaps demonstrate its usefulness by applying it to a complete modelling of say.. oh.. umm... Linux ;)
Design is a Good Thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, they do have a major weakness: it's possible to become too reliant on design documents, such that one loses the ability to think on one's feet. It's an easy trap to fall into, but it has to be avoided. Otherwise, any design problem -and such problems are inevitable in any project of significant size- become paralyzing.
Re:Design is a Good Thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
UML and various other design schemes have this funny habit of making you code every program twice. Once in a modelling language and once in actual code.. A change in requirements, methodology, bug fixes, or anything else that causes code modification requires you to not only update your code but your design diagrams as well. Throw in a heavy handed comment scheme (the comments have
From experience... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, as a software manager, when I hear an interviewee answer the question "What do you know about UML" and their answer is something like "I have done it using Rational's tools" I want to puke. UML automation tools are nothing more than long rope to hang yourself with when given to a programmer who knows nothing about OOA and OOD.
My advice is to learn OOA and OOD independently from UML and then when you have a full grasp of that to look at how UML might help you in those efforts.
Is UML really a language? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is UML really a language? (Score:3, Informative)
There is an OMG standard for the serialization of UML model: XMI. And there is an OMG guideline on transforming the models: MDA.
Now, if only all tools adhered to the XMI standard as their main storage method... Although most can currently output some variant of XMI (although there's just too many right now).
But then again, this is all about tools. There is nothing that would prevent you from using the UML notation on a
Just use common sense! (Score:3, Insightful)
How many people use ad-hoc diagrams? Most of the best diagrams I've seen don't follow any standard but do a better job of documenting.
Deployment diagrams are the best example I can think of as they are the most common to not be done in the UML yet they are always easy to understand. (I never could figure out how to describe clustered/redundant/distributed environments with the UML)
I think class and sequence diags are the only ones worth standardizing and I actually like them. Maybe it's coincidence that these are the ones the 'analysts' don't understand.
The only point in standardizing the other diagrams is so that they could be loaded in to any modelling app. Most UML apps don't even agree on what is/isn't UML anyway so why have them?
I wrote a book on UML, but use it lightly (Score:4, Informative)
At first, I thought that UML was a godsend because it did away with 12+ different modeling languages.
Still, for most of my work, schedules are very tight and my customers usually want to spend as little money on development as possible, so I find myself only using what I consider to be the highest value diagram types: use cases, very general class diagrams, and sequence diagrams.
-Mark
Hackles cartoon (Score:4, Funny)
uml2code... (Score:4, Interesting)
What I would like to see instead is an Open Source command line tool uml2code that will generate source code or patches to an existing code base from an XML description. This would not work unless there is a reverse tool code2uml to analyze code changes, with necessary markup of cource, and generate a change to the XML description. There are some work [pathfindermda.com] done in the area but no tools that I know of. This aproach would give the benefits of a common XML interface between the GUI and the code generation and also the freedom to work with any normal set of compiler and tools on the output. Hmmm, just dreams though...
Here is a really easy methodology: (Score:5, Interesting)
1) write all functionality down as text
2) scan the text and:
a) note all nouns
b) note all verbs
3) make the nouns as objects
4) make the verbs as methods
5) write a dictionary.
6) discard what's left.
7) find the common parts between classes (find base classes)
8) draw an inheritance diagram.
9) draw an ownership diagram (the object model).
10) make up some examples and act them out (either by yourself or with a team) to see if anything else is needed.
It has worked for me quite well in the past for most cases. You can also repeat any number of steps any number of times desired, if cyclic developement is required.
Why Modeling (and UML) could be useful... (Score:4, Informative)
1. UML enables communication on design, architecture that everybody can contribute too. The standard notation and concepts in UML 1.x enabled a foundation for communicating in a team about aspects of software that are not easily gleaned from the code.
I think this in itself makes standardization worth it. Also, it's not a secret language of architects. You read the same books they do.
2. You don't have to have all in one place. The nature of modeling allows models to be developed across different diagrams. UML 1.x is incomplete in this area, UML 2.0 does better. Pushing this notion could lead to some to some interesting places, one could be AOP without requiring AOP code.
3. Some changes are easier in UML. Tools don't do a good job of this, but I find it much easier to change object hierarchies and relationships in UML than in code. Imagine extending this to other areas besides the static layout of classes.
4. Metamodeling. The problem with UML and it's tools right now is the complete lack of metamodel extensibility mechanisms. It's like XML, but you can only use a fixed set of schemas.
This could be a real rat trap, but on the other hand, it could very cool. For example, imagine extending the base class metamodel to add what your project needs for persistence, integrity and object communication, and instead of writing code for every class to enable your special features, you use a model tool and templates to automate most of the process for every class.
5. Little Languages that everybody can use. If metamodel holds promise, it is basis for providing Domain-Specific Modeling Languages that take advantage of common metamodel concepts and visual syntax to reduce the learning and usage curve for every language. Having standards in this area help ensure interoperability and lack of lock in.
Oddly, Microsoft is the only vendor right nowthat really seems to be taking on the notion of metamodeling and DSMLs. I expect IBM and others in Eclipse to do the same around the EMF.
6. Modeling could be a complementary abstraction to programming languages. With some exceptions, we rely on code to produce systems. In some areas, models can often provide additional information that is not "immediately clear" in the code, and can automate the generation of that code.
An excellent example is E/R modeling. I would argue that E/R modeling serves as an good tool for designing relational databases, and shows things about the database that may not be clear from the set of DDL statements.
Now, imagine having the ability to create a whole set of these models that all carry a common infrastructure and tool set. Your DB modeling tools is your XML modeling tool is your OO modeling tool is your Workflow modeling tool, and so on.
The problem is that I view UML as "modeling middleware". I don't see it as just a notation, but I see it as a core infrastructure to base modeling tools on. This probably because I worked on the metamodel. In other words, I've spent too much time inside UML that I see the outside much differently.
Granted, most tools make it seem that UML is pretty (expensive too) pictures. But, hopefully, with UML 2.0, people will understand the real promise of UML and modeling. I think it goes beyond the surface syntax.
Now modeling is not UML. In fact, if Microsoft really pushes forward with Whitehorse, they may create the de-facto modeling standard.
The UML community becomes much more aggresive about providing metamodeling capabilities. Also, XMI needs to improve big time. Also, the OMG and UML would be well served by reaching out to MS and staying in tune with where they are headed, so they don't get caught totally off-guard. There is hope, I think MS has does some good work for the W3C (and some bad work, of course).
Re:UML Modelling - Communications Gap (Score:5, Insightful)
a) the UML tools vendors who say its the best way to produce quality in your projects
b) the people (managers usually) who believe all the stuff a) wrote.
Personally, after seeing UML used to get nowhere, I would always go for a lightweight development methodology (like XP which I dislike, or Crystal Clear [cockburn.us])
Parent