4 ms·

> When it was first invented, UML was aimed at "Unifying" how we diagram things. See but “unifying how we diagram things” isn’t a problem that needs to be solv

> When it was first invented, UML was aimed at "Unifying" how we diagram things. See but “unifying how we diagram things” isn’t a problem that needs to be solved. A good diagram on a whiteboard is more art than science. It is also something that is intentionally as low of fidelity as possible because you might blow it away and do something entirely different. There doesn’t need any “standard” for how to do adhoc diagrams. The minute you add “formal standard” to the process it gets slower when you want it to be even faster. If my whiteboard diagram had to adhere to UML... I wouldn’t bother.

slowmovintarget 6y ago
It actually was a problem. From the article: > In his book on Business Object Notation, Bertrand Meyer lists twenty-six competing methods. I remember reading documents that listed over fifty, but I can’t seem to find them again so it might be a false memory. I also distinctly remember how difficult it was to learn from other's designs. Back then, there was no Stack Overflow or Google. Developers like me obsessed over the latest books (like this new Design Patterns book, have you heard about it?!?) It isn't a problem today because that's not how design ideas get communicated anymore. You have blog posts, and GitHub repos with examples and Markdown. This is better. But in the mid to late 90s, UML really helped. Disclaimer: I was on many of those OMG committees for Model Driven Architecture and UML back in its heyday. I've also sat in Sushi restaurants after conference proceedings during dinner with some of the people mentioned in the article. The talk was of how we were going to change the industry. I smile to think of how things moved on without our dreams. :)
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  I don't see why UML diagrams wouldn't be very useful inside blog posts ?
Pet_Ant 6y ago
> There doesn’t need any “standard” for how to do adhoc diagrams. Oh yes there does. I have seen people makeup ad hoc notation during an ad hoc diagram and then get confused by what it means orthe meaning shifts during the diagram. No, we have a standardised language. You wouldn't want blueprints with ad hoc units. "14 snails thick, and 3 rabbit-seconds in length which we indicate with an underlined star"
- fargle 6y ago
  You don't need a standard for ad-hoc whiteboard diagrams or expositional figures. You're comparing apples and oranges because what you are talking about needing this level of precision in is more "blueprints", not ad-hoc diagrams. And, while it's my opinion only, blueprints for software are best written in prose. For C++ for example, I think the best language to use is concise, precise, well written, C++. And so on.

slowmovintarget 6y ago

It actually was a problem. From the article: > In his book on Business Object Notation, Bertrand Meyer lists twenty-six competing methods. I remember reading documents that listed over fifty, but I can’t seem to find them again so it might be a false memory. I also distinctly remember how difficult it was to learn from other's designs. Back then, there was no Stack Overflow or Google. Developers like me obsessed over the latest books (like this new Design Patterns book, have you heard about it?!?) It isn't a problem today because that's not how design ideas get communicated anymore. You have blog posts, and GitHub repos with examples and Markdown. This is better. But in the mid to late 90s, UML really helped. Disclaimer: I was on many of those OMG committees for Model Driven Architecture and UML back in its heyday. I've also sat in Sushi restaurants after conference proceedings during dinner with some of the people mentioned in the article. The talk was of how we were going to change the industry. I smile to think of how things moved on without our dreams. :)

BlueTemplar 6y ago
I don't see why UML diagrams wouldn't be very useful inside blog posts ?

Pet_Ant 6y ago

> There doesn’t need any “standard” for how to do adhoc diagrams. Oh yes there does. I have seen people makeup ad hoc notation during an ad hoc diagram and then get confused by what it means orthe meaning shifts during the diagram. No, we have a standardised language. You wouldn't want blueprints with ad hoc units. "14 snails thick, and 3 rabbit-seconds in length which we indicate with an underlined star"

fargle 6y ago
You don't need a standard for ad-hoc whiteboard diagrams or expositional figures. You're comparing apples and oranges because what you are talking about needing this level of precision in is more "blueprints", not ad-hoc diagrams. And, while it's my opinion only, blueprints for software are best written in prose. For C++ for example, I think the best language to use is concise, precise, well written, C++. And so on.