3 ms·

> prominent people from the early days, including Grady Booch, Bertrand Meyer, and Ed Seidewitz What does Bertrand Meyer have to do with the history of UML? >

by Rochus 6y ago

> prominent people from the early days, including Grady Booch, Bertrand Meyer, and Ed Seidewitz What does Bertrand Meyer have to do with the history of UML? > they bought Jacobson’s consulting company and phased out OOSE. Objectory was a much better tool than Rational Rose; never understood, why they killed it. The most useful features of UML and RUP came from Objectory (Rose only had clouds and arrows at that time). > The Reasons The given reasons are not very convincing. I would rather say that once again an originally good idea was blown up to such an extent that only the cargo cult league was completely satisfied with it, and everyone else realized that once again the wrong problem was being solved with a lot of effort.

hwayne 6y ago
> What does Bertrand Meyer have to do with the history of UML? Good question! While he wasn't involved with the standardization of it, he was one of the first major opponents, primarily because 1) was already a giant in OOP methodology, and 2) had a competing notation (BON). Also he was a real big stickler about "it's not really OOP if you're not using EIFFEL (tee em)". So he had a lot of firsthand knowledge of the early controversies and arguments and stuff.
rightbyte 6y ago
I guess Objectory etc. was better suited for statemachine like systems like telephone systems. I.e. the tool is better at Ericsson where it was originally used than IBM.
- Rochus 6y ago
  No, it was general purpose and the direct predecessor of the initial UML and RUP versions. Here is a summary in case you're interested: https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/books/object-oriented-software-engineering-1992 https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/books/object-orien.... Objectory was the name of the method, the tool and the company as well. The tool supported the whole development process with fully cross-referenced model versions for each phase, model integrated editors with a kind of transclusion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion), and a very powerful document generator; even round-trip engineering was supported. Unfortunately the tool vanished when Rational both them and you barely can find anything about it on the web.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Interesting. I could not find much about them. Transclusion (yes I had to look it up) I feel would be an interesting property in development and the "auto complete" type of transclusion always feels like a hack. I wonder how structured software engineering feels like in a big project. Everywhere I have been involved, there were no structure what so ever on the technical level, just process on features and resources.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      > I could not find much about them. I once asked Jacobson whether he would release the source code; unfortunately he wasn't able to do so; maybe the IP owners will change their minds some day (as others did with their outdated software). > Transclusion I rarely see implementations of it. Some years ago I built a tool which shares a small subset of features with Objectory (so the transcluding links between items); here is the link in case you're interested: https://github.com/rochus-keller/CrossLine https://github.com/rochus-keller/CrossLine.

by Rochus 6y ago

hwayne 6y ago

> What does Bertrand Meyer have to do with the history of UML? Good question! While he wasn't involved with the standardization of it, he was one of the first major opponents, primarily because 1) was already a giant in OOP methodology, and 2) had a competing notation (BON). Also he was a real big stickler about "it's not really OOP if you're not using EIFFEL (tee em)". So he had a lot of firsthand knowledge of the early controversies and arguments and stuff.

rightbyte 6y ago

I guess Objectory etc. was better suited for statemachine like systems like telephone systems. I.e. the tool is better at Ericsson where it was originally used than IBM.

Rochus 6y ago
No, it was general purpose and the direct predecessor of the initial UML and RUP versions. Here is a summary in case you're interested: https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/books/object-oriented-software-engineering-1992 https://www.ivarjacobson.com/publications/books/object-orien.... Objectory was the name of the method, the tool and the company as well. The tool supported the whole development process with fully cross-referenced model versions for each phase, model integrated editors with a kind of transclusion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion), and a very powerful document generator; even round-trip engineering was supported. Unfortunately the tool vanished when Rational both them and you barely can find anything about it on the web.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Interesting. I could not find much about them. Transclusion (yes I had to look it up) I feel would be an interesting property in development and the "auto complete" type of transclusion always feels like a hack. I wonder how structured software engineering feels like in a big project. Everywhere I have been involved, there were no structure what so ever on the technical level, just process on features and resources.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    > I could not find much about them. I once asked Jacobson whether he would release the source code; unfortunately he wasn't able to do so; maybe the IP owners will change their minds some day (as others did with their outdated software). > Transclusion I rarely see implementations of it. Some years ago I built a tool which shares a small subset of features with Objectory (so the transcluding links between items); here is the link in case you're interested: https://github.com/rochus-keller/CrossLine https://github.com/rochus-keller/CrossLine.