> (...) it must also be a good use for every instance of that class. You, and OP, failed to present a single argument supporting the thesis that modeling langu

> (...) it must also be a good use for every instance of that class. You, and OP, failed to present a single argument supporting the thesis that modeling languages in general, and UML in particular, are "lunacy and a massive red flag." > Sometimes motivations are misguided (...) Not only did you failed to support anything in the original anti-diagram rant, now you also tried to support generalizations with hypothetical corner cases involving misuses, which is an absurd argument to make. So not only do you have zero substance for show with regards to the original anti-UML rant, you also resort to using vague, unsubstantiated strawmen. This is to be expected. Like many discussions involving technical aspects, generally detractors come from positions of opinionated ignorance.