I definitely agree. We actually make heavy use of sequence diagrams where I work to show how our code works to non-coder stakeholders, where the syntax of a par

I definitely agree. We actually make heavy use of sequence diagrams where I work to show how our code works to non-coder stakeholders, where the syntax of a particular language is just a distraction. Like you said, UML is only useful as far as you don't have to maintain it and it's a curated subset (no.. Don't include my helper overloads, just give me the core essence of the class). When you do have to go out of your way to generate a diagram, they are best treated as postit notes for temporary communication or as high level snapshots of API flow or something relatively stable. As far as pidgin UML, as long as you keep to the basics you know and don't try to shoehorn something else in, that's fine. What grinds my gears is a poor reimplementation of something UML has already defined. I'd say most people only go so far as learning how to do class diagrams and don't realize the other diagrams are useful outside of upper management waterfall jackhattery. The best part of UML (I believe this is the view even from the creators but I may be wrong) is that you can take only bits and pieces and it's still damn useful.