Has anyone used UML?

[Steve Holden]

On a current-affairs note I'm teaching close to Boston right next to
Rational's offices this week. Is there a message you'd like me to deliver in
person? ;-)

regards
 Steve

--

http://www.holdenweb.com/

"David LeBlanc" <whisper at oz.nospamnet> wrote in message
news:9g5oml$ird$6 at 216.39.170.247...
> In article <3B250921.F9F1D571 at bt.com>, alan.gauld at bt.com says...
> > Mats Wichmann wrote:
> > > Yes, it's kind of interesting that way.  Three of the main
> > > practitioners of OO methodologies and modeling strategies all ended up
> > > working for Rational,  leaving them with the odd situation of having
> > > the proponents of three different modelling schemes on staff.
> >
> > Not true! Rumbaugh and then Jacobson specifically joined
> > Rational to create the UML. By the time they joined they
> > already recognised the need for a unifying language.
>
> wellll.... actually Rational bought both Rumbaugh's and Ivarson's
> companies and they came along with the sale. From what I hear there is a
> good deal of not so cordial dislike between/among the "3 amigos"
> carefully hidden from the hoi poli of course.
>
> > Rational Rose(the CASE tool) already existed (indeed was at
> > version 2 at least) and was based on Booch's notation. The
> > first version to support UML still had Booch as default...
> >
> > > all...  on the other hand, it may be that Rational Rose really is
> > > "that damn good" (personally, I have zero experience with it).
> >
> > When it first appeared (around 1992) it was the best thing
> > available - almost the only thing available - for "round
> > trip engineering". ie You could draw a design, generate code,
> > modify the code and then suck the code changes back into
> > your design. First time I saw that I was astounded at how
> > good it was. Nowadays several tools do the same tricks
> > - with pretty much equally unsuccessful results! But they
> > are all better than nothing for a significant sized project.
> >
> > Likewise they are all overkill for a small one!
> >
> > Alan g.
> >
> For all the ado about UML, there seems to be few competitors to Rose, at
> least that i'm aware of and, unlike most good innovations in the computer
> world, there has been little trickle-down of quality software to the
> generic small-shop programmer level. Perhaps that's due to little
> competition, the perception that one doesn't have the time to actually do
> decent design in today's competitive market and that abomination called
> XP (development by comittee - oh please - it's what the Japanese are
> working hard to get away from!)
>