3 ms·

> What do you think is the whole point of a modeling language? Not building an entire system down to class level which is what it is all too often used for (in

> What do you think is the whole point of a modeling language? Not building an entire system down to class level which is what it is all too often used for (in my experience exclusively by people who have never and cannot code). It's inefficient, doesn't play well with Software Engineering (diff, version control etc..) and is a relic of the past. Keep the classes in code, project that into a diagram for the few occasions that is actually needed, and stick to a simplified tool like C4 (https://c4model.com https://c4model.com) for your architectural views. Sprinkle some sequence diagrams in too to help describe the key data flows (they're handy next to C4). Why use C4 over UML? Because the vast majority of the audience don't even know what UML is. So keep it extremely simple and include a key / guide to any of the (few) shapes or colors you use so that it's completely self contained. The vast majority of UML belongs to be put into the Indiana Jones storage facility along with other archaic ideas such as Function Points / Function Point Analysis.

rewmie 3y ago
> Not building an entire system down to class level (...) That was never the point of modeling languages. Your baseless assumption is even more absurd when you factor in the fact that modeling languages even express runtime behavior, componente, and packaging. The main problem with these mindless attacks on modeling languages in general and UML in particular is that the bulk of their retractors clearly knows nothing nor has any direct contact with them, or how they are used in the real world. Their arguments are nothing more than poorly thought through strawmen. Your comment fits well. > Why use C4 over UML? See, this is a telltale sign you know nothing about what you're commenting on. Not only is C4 a modelling language like UML but it also covers the exact same responsibilities and features of UML. C4's main selling point is advocating for the representation multiple points of view, and UML is a standard specification to express all the points of view you see fit in a coherent and rational way. There is no C4 vs UML. They have both the exact same design goals and usecases.

rewmie 3y ago

> Not building an entire system down to class level (...) That was never the point of modeling languages. Your baseless assumption is even more absurd when you factor in the fact that modeling languages even express runtime behavior, componente, and packaging. The main problem with these mindless attacks on modeling languages in general and UML in particular is that the bulk of their retractors clearly knows nothing nor has any direct contact with them, or how they are used in the real world. Their arguments are nothing more than poorly thought through strawmen. Your comment fits well. > Why use C4 over UML? See, this is a telltale sign you know nothing about what you're commenting on. Not only is C4 a modelling language like UML but it also covers the exact same responsibilities and features of UML. C4's main selling point is advocating for the representation multiple points of view, and UML is a standard specification to express all the points of view you see fit in a coherent and rational way. There is no C4 vs UML. They have both the exact same design goals and usecases.