4 ms·
Is the formalism of UML actually useful? I don't think I've ever done a collaborative software project without scribbling some boxes representing system compon
by GlennS 13y ago
Is the formalism of UML actually useful?
I don't think I've ever done a collaborative software project without scribbling some boxes representing system components on a piece of paper. Sequence diagrams are also quite useful (instead of showing who has a reference to whom, you're showing flow of control).
But, once the understanding has been passed on, the documents get scrunched up and chucked in the bin. No-one worries about representing the minutae of inheritance on them. I certainly don't see the point of showing them to a customer.
- wpietri 13y agoI'm with you on the proper lifetime of diagrams. They should be preserved only until someone else needs the whiteboard. Even so, I happily took a little time years ago to learn UML basics, because I needed some notation for my whiteboard sketching, and having a common one seemed better than just everybody making up their own. (Even given that the one that I made up would of course be superior.) I've never regretted it. It's sort of like blueprint symbols. I never do more than sketch out a couple of rooms. But I'd still rather use the standard symbol for a door or a window or a toilet then to screw around coming up with my own, and then hope others can figure it out. If anybody wants a quick UML intro, I strongly recommend Martin Fowler's book: <http://martinfowler.com/books/uml.html> http://martinfowler.com/books/uml.html>.