I wholeheartedly agree. UML never really lived, and I will say the reason is that it doesn't solve a problem that needs solving. It's supposed to be a universa

I wholeheartedly agree. UML never really lived, and I will say the reason is that it doesn't solve a problem that needs solving. It's supposed to be a universal (visual) language. Two problems, in the real world the way it was used and, more often than not, misused it was far from universal. I mean that deployment diagram is really kinda of more of an object diagram or class diagram, except for wait why are you using the open arrows there??? What? Guess what? I can draw things in visio too. If I want to describe a sequence, I can draw a timeline or sequence diagram-like without any ritually specialized visual nomenclature. And it would be a lot more universally understood because nobody really knows the fine details of UML in the first place. The fact that what I mean by arrows and boxes is unique to the situation and not a standard does not in any way reduce my ability to describe and communicate a design with arrows and boxes. Communicating a design via words, language, OR graphics is an art and it is not helped by a crude "universal" visual nomenclature that is in reality widely misused. Secondly, nomenclature isn't the problem in the first place. Design is. Communication of the design is too. UML is more of a hindrance to these than a benefit. It's like the difference between a fine art portrait and an Identikit in the hands of a random wage slave with bad taste.