30 ms·
I think it was Kent Beck that proposed the tongue-in-cheek Galactic Markup Language, GML as his preferred alternative. It has very clear semantics: a box is a b
by mjul 5y ago
I think it was Kent Beck that proposed the tongue-in-cheek Galactic Markup Language, GML as his preferred alternative. It has very clear semantics: a box is a box and an arrow is an arrow.
Personally I always found that the less formalistic diagrams communicate much better since you can focus on providing the essential skeleton for your ideas rather than drowning in details that are only relevant in some contexts.
- layer8 5y agoNevertheless it would be useful if everyone knew which "arrows" mean subtyping vs. reference vs. ownership vs. instantiation, and which boxes mean action vs. object/class, etc. If you only have "arrow" and "box", you have to explain what you mean by them in the specific instance every time. Also, UML does have some nice graphical notation like ——(o—— to denote interface and implementation (sockets and plugs).
- marcus_holmes 5y ago> explain what you mean by them in the specific instance every time. this is a feature, not a bug. The diagram isn't a substitute for the conversation. It's an aid for the conversation (and a way of remembering what was said afterwards). The mistake was always trying to come up with a diagramming methodology that could communicate the entire design without the need for people to talk to each other.