Ha, an interesting link, thanks. It comes off as an attempt to atone for former sins and a rather not very convincing one (not to me, personally, anyway). Booc

Ha, an interesting link, thanks. It comes off as an attempt to atone for former sins and a rather not very convincing one (not to me, personally, anyway). Booch goes on to state: > The UML was originally designed to be a language for visualizing and reasoning about a system […] Which system, an existing one or the one being designed? Most existing systems don't have the extensive UML diagramming that supplements the system documentation, so if we are going to use UML to reverse engineer an existing system, the UML diagrams are nearly guaranteed to be incomplete and miss a crucial aspect of the system or a few. Booch actually confesses in being a reverse engineering aficionado: > I have always been a fan of reverse engineering notation from code. If we are using UML to reason about a system being designed, the UML diagramming and coding are disjoint activities undertaken by distinct people: architects or designers produce UML diagrams and software engineers interpret them. The interpretation is always a subjective affair and is nearly guaranteed to diverge from the diagrams at some point. Booch goes on to attest the same further down the thread: > The code is the truth, but not the whole truth. So, Rational Software had Rational Rose that generated the code from UML diagrams in an attempt to bridge the gap (but not as an attempt to be a visual programming language) between the design in UML and the interpretation of the design by a human being, and that did not work.