> Another thing is that I find MBD often harder to read than code. I can't really point to hard evidence, but I have a good analogy here in terms of UX. It is

> Another thing is that I find MBD often harder to read than code. I can't really point to hard evidence, but I have a good analogy here in terms of UX. It is harder to read. Both for humans and for programs. In code, if you see a mysterious call to "flushData", there are standard ways in each language to discover exactly where the definition of that logic is. In contrast, what is the standard way to discover what a circle means? A dotted arrow? OK. Maybe your IDE has a right-click "go to shape definition" option. But that's not a language feature. That's a tool feature. So you don't really have a language spec. You have a tool spec. So the problem is that the language is hard to read because it's not a concrete language. It's a nebulous implementation detail of a tool.