3 ms·

> I take it you never took a UML certification exam. You're either very disingenuous or deeply confused. You don't need to hold a Master's degree in English to

> I take it you never took a UML certification exam. You're either very disingenuous or deeply confused. You don't need to hold a Master's degree in English to hold a conversation with English speakers. You don't need academic certification to use a tool to communicate ideas. It makes no sense to assert that the usefulness and ease of use of a language is demonstrated by how far and how extensively it may be covered in an academic setting. Lines and boxes. It's not that hard, is it?

skrebbel 7y ago
I don't understand why you insist on disagreeing so violently when we're mostly on the same page. In fact I don't disagree with a single word in your comment, except the part about disingenuous which baffles me. We agree that UML has a subset of common features that are super useful to communicate about software. That doesn't make UML as a whole any less overcomplicated and overspecified, though! Most people agree that languages like C++ or Scala are large and complicated. The fact that you can choose to write C++ code that only uses functions and structs and pointers doesn't change anything about that. I said nothing about UML's ease of use. I said something about its drop in popularity and about the swathes of useless features UML fans promoted when it was at the peak of its hype cycle. I mean, I assume you agree that UML is less popular now than it used to be? Sidenote: nothing about UML was ever intended to be academic, I'm not sure where you got that term from all of a sudden. It was all very industry driven. People wanted to do "model driven development" and realized if only UML could have super precise semantics, you could generate entire programs from UML. This actually works and serious amounts of software have been painstakingly written this way. It's totally nuts.

3 ms·

> I take it you never took a UML certification exam. You're either very disingenuous or deeply confused. You don't need to hold a Master's degree in English to

by rumanator 7y ago

skrebbel 7y ago
I don't understand why you insist on disagreeing so violently when we're mostly on the same page. In fact I don't disagree with a single word in your comment, except the part about disingenuous which baffles me. We agree that UML has a subset of common features that are super useful to communicate about software. That doesn't make UML as a whole any less overcomplicated and overspecified, though! Most people agree that languages like C++ or Scala are large and complicated. The fact that you can choose to write C++ code that only uses functions and structs and pointers doesn't change anything about that. I said nothing about UML's ease of use. I said something about its drop in popularity and about the swathes of useless features UML fans promoted when it was at the peak of its hype cycle. I mean, I assume you agree that UML is less popular now than it used to be? Sidenote: nothing about UML was ever intended to be academic, I'm not sure where you got that term from all of a sudden. It was all very industry driven. People wanted to do "model driven development" and realized if only UML could have super precise semantics, you could generate entire programs from UML. This actually works and serious amounts of software have been painstakingly written this way. It's totally nuts.