4 ms·
I wonder if git had a part in it. That UML doesn't have a good textual format, or really any standard file format, means it really doesn't play well with git. I
by TorKlingberg 5y ago
I wonder if git had a part in it. That UML doesn't have a good textual format, or really any standard file format, means it really doesn't play well with git. I remember IBM/Rational had some kind of diff & merge tool for UML, but it was horrible.
- robjan 5y agoPlant UML was pretty widely used. The interface is very 2000 but it's still maintained.
- slowmovintarget 5y agoIt has a standard format, it's just unpleasant. (XMI is not for writing by hand.) There were other textual serializations in the various OMG standards. But you're representing a graph, which never works properly with line-oriented merge tools.
- the-dude 5y agoThis screams XML.
- tannhaeuser 5y agoIf you mean XMI that's XML indeed. But merely it using XML doesn't begin to describe its insanity. It has metamodels, meta-metamodels, ..., all described in OMG's "MOF", starting from the idea that OO principles somehow pass as formal method or logical framework, and ends in "Extreme UML", posing decision problems with unknown complexity/feasibility/decidability left and right. It's truly junior OOP zealotry going beyond its comfort zone. What's particular bad IMHO is that OMG/IBM managed to undermine completely unrelated and useful BPM modelling standards into the dead end that was UML, taking those down along with the nonsensical XMI, MOF, EMF, GEF.
- the-dude 5y agoMy CS education was in the right timeframe, but somehow I have been able to evade the UML rabbit hole. We did have a course on Object Oriented Databases, which would obviously take over the world. Except they didn't. And CORBA.
- cratermoon 5y agoHave you looked at PlantUML or WebSequenceDiagrams syntax?