4 ms·
I was developing SW in the 1990s (before XP, then Agile, become popular), and we were supposed to use UML, Rational Rose etc. However, that was how it was suppo
by henrik_w 11y ago
I was developing SW in the 1990s (before XP, then Agile, become popular), and we were supposed to use UML, Rational Rose etc. However, that was how it was supposed to work, not how it actually worked.
The biggest relief in starting to use XP was that the methodology described how we actually worked, not how we were supposed to work.
- crdoconnor 11y agoI always thought the quality of rational rose itself was the best argument against UML. After all, that's probably what it was designed with.
- julian_t 11y agoOh my, I can so identify with this. I used to do product reviews for a magazine, and Rose was the only review software I decided not to keep. And I'd have felt bad giving it to anyone else. From that time on, any mention of Rose in a job description automatically disqualified it.
- mml 11y agoI was on a big project in the early aughts (pure XP, pairing, tickets, stories, tests (40,000 of them at the end) etc), on which, we were contractually obliged to A. hire on at least 4 accenture consultants, and B. purchase 4 rational rose seats. We simply stuck the accenture clowns alone in a room with rational rose, and we never heard from them again (nor did we ever see any uml). Best case scenario.