4 ms·

Well, I can pick up a piece of paper with classes, or a sequence diagram and external systems, and then tell the story from many perspectives to another person.

Well, I can pick up a piece of paper with classes, or a sequence diagram and external systems, and then tell the story from many perspectives to another person. "This depends on that, this calls that, and then calls that external system via this interface..." and so on. With a only text I would find that much harder to communicate. That's why I find diagrams much better - you can just jump in at any point and explain things in any order you like, usually with the aid of a pointing finger :-)

lisper 4y ago
> With a only text I would find that much harder to communicate. And yet you just did it: "This depends on that, this calls that, and then calls that external system via this interface..." I really don't see the salient difference between this depends on that and this <-- that (Or is it this --> that? Or this --<> that? this --<>* that? I can never remember.)
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  In my experience, the difference comes when you have many relationships which are organized into higher order relationships (eg, subsystems). English is linear in a way diagrams are not.
  - lisper 4y ago
    "Text" != "English". Text in general need not be linear, e.g.: System1 sub-system1a sub-system1b System2 sub-system2a sub-system2b (This is the reason indentation in programming languages is a thing.)
    - rini17 4y ago
      But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? (Yes most programming languages use trees, it has some advantages. But most people program in excel anyway.)
      - lisper 4y ago
        > What will you do when you need to describe a graph What will you do when you need to describe a graph with (say) more than a thousand nodes? I hope you won't try to draw a picture of it.
        rini17 4y ago
        Why not? Feeding it to graphviz is one of the viable avenues of attack.
        lisper 4y ago
        And what exactly is the "it" that you "feed to graphviz"? Creating a graphical rendering of data is not what I was referring to when I spoke of drawing a picture. What I meant was actually drawing, i.e. using MacDraw or PowerPoint or a pencil and paper and drawing. Because that is what people mostly do when they use UML.
        rini17 4y ago
        Electrical circuits were mentioned and yes they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK, even with over 1000 nodes. What's the argument here?
        lisper 4y ago
        > they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK I work at Intel, so I can tell you with some authority that you are mistaken.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? Graphs are reducible to lists of nodes and edges which are very linearizable. That may not be the most useful form for comprehension, but linear forms are quite good for writing and storing. Visual notation is useful for presentation here, but IME quality is much lower in drawn diagrams than rendered-from-linearly-authored-text diagrams, which explains why most of my diagramming is done in a text editor (e.g., in Markdown+Mermaid) with visual preview.

lisper 4y ago

> With a only text I would find that much harder to communicate. And yet you just did it: "This depends on that, this calls that, and then calls that external system via this interface..." I really don't see the salient difference between this depends on that and this <-- that (Or is it this --> that? Or this --<> that? this --<>* that? I can never remember.)

zmgsabst 4y ago
In my experience, the difference comes when you have many relationships which are organized into higher order relationships (eg, subsystems). English is linear in a way diagrams are not.
- lisper 4y ago
  "Text" != "English". Text in general need not be linear, e.g.: System1 sub-system1a sub-system1b System2 sub-system2a sub-system2b (This is the reason indentation in programming languages is a thing.)
  - rini17 4y ago
    But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? (Yes most programming languages use trees, it has some advantages. But most people program in excel anyway.)
    - lisper 4y ago
      > What will you do when you need to describe a graph What will you do when you need to describe a graph with (say) more than a thousand nodes? I hope you won't try to draw a picture of it.
      - rini17 4y ago
        Why not? Feeding it to graphviz is one of the viable avenues of attack.
        lisper 4y ago
        And what exactly is the "it" that you "feed to graphviz"? Creating a graphical rendering of data is not what I was referring to when I spoke of drawing a picture. What I meant was actually drawing, i.e. using MacDraw or PowerPoint or a pencil and paper and drawing. Because that is what people mostly do when they use UML.
        rini17 4y ago
        Electrical circuits were mentioned and yes they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK, even with over 1000 nodes. What's the argument here?
        lisper 4y ago
        > they are usually designed by drawing AFAIK I work at Intel, so I can tell you with some authority that you are mistaken.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > But trees are trivially linarizable. What will you do when you need to describe a graph, when there's some direct relationships between sub-systems? Graphs are reducible to lists of nodes and edges which are very linearizable. That may not be the most useful form for comprehension, but linear forms are quite good for writing and storing. Visual notation is useful for presentation here, but IME quality is much lower in drawn diagrams than rendered-from-linearly-authored-text diagrams, which explains why most of my diagramming is done in a text editor (e.g., in Markdown+Mermaid) with visual preview.