> UML, for all of it's faults, is precisely defined. Every symbol means something. That's another fault, in my opinion. I'd rather have a vague high-level diag

> UML, for all of it's faults, is precisely defined. Every symbol means something. That's another fault, in my opinion. I'd rather have a vague high-level diagram with a write-up that rigorously describes all the invariants and structure than have a really semantic diagram which is meant to stand alone. I think software structure is too complex to model with anything less powerful than natural language — that's why we add comments into code to explain the things that even the code itself doesn't make obvious.