OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
33 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Christiano F. Haesbaert
Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:

I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
software engineering in my university.

My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented it, and for
some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it.

So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled developers, I ask
for your opinion.

Is my impression completely wrong ?

Do any of you believe in it ?

Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Lars Nooden-2
On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
> Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
>
> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> software engineering in my university.

User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of
the linux kernel lists found at the wiki:

  http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp

I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much
higher profile and allows others guest and host sytems.  qemu / kqemu is
available in ports.

:P

/Lars

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Walter Goulet
I think the UML the OP is referring to is Unified Modeling Language
and Rational Unified Process.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Lars Nooden <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
>>
>> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
>> software engineering in my university.
>
> User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of
> the linux kernel lists found at the wiki:
>
>        http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp
>
> I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much higher
> profile and allows others guest and host sytems.  qemu / kqemu is available
> in ports.
>
> :P
>
> /Lars

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Toni Mueller-10
On Wed, 05.05.2010 at 14:31:32 -0500, Walter Goulet <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think the UML the OP is referring to is Unified Modeling Language
> and Rational Unified Process.

I think this solves it:

> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Lars Nooden <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > :P

 ;)


Kind regards,
--Toni++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Christiano F. Haesbaert
In reply to this post by Lars Nooden-2
On 5 May 2010 16:25, Lars Nooden <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
>>
>> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
>> software engineering in my university.
>
> User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of
> the linux kernel lists found at the wiki:
>
>        http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp
>
> I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much higher
> profile and allows others guest and host sytems.  qemu / kqemu is available
> in ports.
>

Sorry for UML I meant Unified Modeling Language.
and for RUP Rational Unified Process

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Toni Mueller-10
In reply to this post by Christiano F. Haesbaert
Hi,

I'm not an OpenBSD developer, but would like to chime in anyway:

On Wed, 05.05.2010 at 16:08:47 -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> software engineering in my university.

Many of those things are not really "bullshit", but they aim at
vastly different environments and goals than most free software does.

> My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented it, and for
> some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it.

For RUP, the people who wrote it, had a company running for some years
before being bought out by IBM, where they now produce subsequent
versions of their software, and hone their theories. I'm too lazy to
pull out facts to make similar statements about UML, but these tools
imho address different prob

> So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled developers,

No doubt about that, but

> Is my impression completely wrong ?
>
> Do any of you believe in it ?

what kind of "confidence" do you want for, say, your pacemaker? Or for
a satellite system? Or a worldwide money transfer system? Or your car's
ABS brake? Want to trust millions or billions of dollars and/or human
lives, including your own, to the genius of a handful of people?  And
if so, how do you want to scale? Or how do you want to pass
governmental requirements before being allowed to let the software run?
Would people like OpenBSD developers probably are, be equally
successful in such regulated enviroments, even if they wanted to be in
there in the first place?


Kind regards,
--Toni++

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Greg Thomas-3
In reply to this post by Christiano F. Haesbaert
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 5 May 2010 16:25, Lars Nooden <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 05/05/2010 10:08 PM, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
> >>
> >> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> >> software engineering in my university.
> >
> > User Mode Linux works ok, you should probably try asking over on one of
> > the linux kernel lists found at the wiki:
> >
> >        http://uml.jfdi.org/uml/Wiki.jsp
> >
> > I'm surprised it's a big deal at your university. VirtualBox is much
> higher
> > profile and allows others guest and host sytems.  qemu / kqemu is
> available
> > in ports.
> >
>
> Sorry for UML I meant Unified Modeling Language.
> and for RUP Rational Unified Process
>
>
I think you guys missed the :P.

The app teams here at my work are big RUPpies but it seems to me that here
it's:

1)  Over applied on simple projects that don't need it.
2)  Adds a lot overhead and bureaucracy creating long delays in projects.

It has created some good practices with regards to configuration and change
management here.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

dereck
In reply to this post by Christiano F. Haesbaert
I just lurk on this list.  But UML modeling is not BS when used in some places.

In Linux or BSD programming, though, it would only really work for user applications that are more OOP; UML isn't easy to do in C.  [No need to whack me, I know that OOP can be done in ANSI C but it usually is not.]

If you are going to use Objects and go that route in your programming, then UML can be very helpful.  Because UML is intimately tied to the understanding of the _state_ of an object looked at through multiple charts.  Unfortunately there is a broad, learned consensus that most people that use OOP don't actually do OOP correctly.  When you are looking at UML you are really getting a handle on the state transitions, and that is mostly a object understanding of programming.

It _is_ very useful for user space applications if used correctly and used for object-oriented programming in C++ or Java or Smalltalk (or even Ruby or Python).  It would help to define your objects that are needed and the states of the objects through the lifetime of the application.  Ideally too, the use of UML helps to constrain your thinking, meaning you have to put the messages that the objects pass with the correct objects and not leave 'globals' that lurk around the application (which often happens in bad OOP design).  And this modeling naturally leads to the code objects needed and object abstractions needed to do the code Interfaces, that will in turn be used to create the objects through the implementation of those interfaces.

Two (very big) caveats, though, must be admitted straight off.

First, UML is hard to work with in procedural languages.  Since Linux or BSD is still mostly written and extended in C then it is really hard to use it successfully.  Procedural languages don't have the same 'context' of thinking as OOP languages (even the hybrids like C++).  C doesn't have the programming contexts (as usually written) that allow for language-based interface creation, or inheritance.  And remember, C is usually used as a collection of small programs working together, not with a large monolithic 'driver' program that collects instantiations of objects that then pass messages to one another.  What I mean to say is that the C requires (mostly) a different way of thinking as that which you are trying to ideally use in UML.  Many Linux kernel people openly express hatred for C++ and Java - these people are very wedded to the understanding of smaller programs often piped together to do something useful.  For those persons UML would be complete
 waste of time (and I'd agree with the characterization and the talent of these people).

Secondly, UML is difficult to use without discipline.  So UML doesn't fit (at all) the traditional (and useful) understanding of the software hacker who wants to get the program working and will happily rewrite and revise many times to get it just right.  It is more a learned discipline, and I agree that initially it could seem heavy-handed and unnecessarily large and complex.  But in your CS classes you are NOT designing a system with 5000 objects in three large modules with 15 programmers working in tandem.  I'd argue that the state transition understanding given by good UML discipline can be helpful such larger projects, since you really, really want to know what someone else's code is supposed to do at a transition point.  The model would clarify the issues AND constrain the required transitions expected from someone else.  [If you are expecting a message of one type and get another from another programmer's code, then someone has not followed the
 model!]

Also there is something else that should be mentioned if you are going to use OOP since there is at least one place that UML can really help you - especially if you are going to work in teams of programmers larger than 3.  In addition to constraining your thinking along the lines of "where does the originator of message live?"  it also (when done right) can work as a natural prototyping language.  Fred Brooks (controversially) wrote that every programmer working with a new program should "Plan to throw one version of the software away - you will anyway."  He meant, of course, that it is difficult to get all of the understandings of a program correct the first time.  I would argue strongly that UML done correctly and thoroughly could help you design the first one or two versions of a system with modeling only, and then allow those to be thrown away with paper before coding actually begins.  Used with disciple UML could really help to clarify what is
 needed, and can even help prevent scope creep if the objects are done correctly.  But again, it really only cleanly works (in most cases) with object programming and those languages which naturally lend themselves to 'classes' and 'inheritance' and 'message passing'.  Indeed, if you are working in C you could still do this prototyping with paper as well - though constraining yourself to UML would be somewhat pointless.

Finally, you should know that RUP is a _process_ that uses UML.  UML is a discipline that doesn't need RUP.  I'm not a fan of RUP, but I can see how it might be helpful in large shops to clarify all of the issues in both programming and when planning business issues.

UML can be done with pen and paper, or with a drawing tool.  There is a free one from Cay Horstman called "Violet".  And there are for-pay ones that are good as well for drawing the forms, etc.  [I've used MetaMill and I like it.  I think it is about 100 USD for a single user.]  One negative of computer drawing is that the promise of code generation doesn't seem to actually work very well. No tool that I've ever worked with should be used for code generation apart from a starting point.

Basically UML is a process of object-oriented design and you can take it or leave it.  But I've never met anyone that understood and used it who did not become a much better object _programmer_ (without the procedural logic mixed with his objects, and the global variables needed to hold stray messages).  YMMV

--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Christiano F. Haesbaert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Christiano F. Haesbaert <[hidden email]>
> Subject: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> To: "OpenBSD Questions" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 7:08 PM
> Sorry for such an out of topic
> thread, hear my pain:
>
> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this
> boulshit about
> software engineering in my university.
>
> My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented it,
> and for
> some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it.
>
> So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled
> developers, I ask
> for your opinion.
>
> Is my impression completely wrong ?
>
> Do any of you believe in it ?
>
> Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by Christiano F. Haesbaert
I have sen many attempts at UML and they all ended in tears.  Not
surprising because UML is an academic thing that does not apply to that
thing we call "reality".  Total waste of time.  But wait, it gets
better!  If you want to see it fail even more spectacularly use the
"tools" they have such as rational rose.  Hilarity ensues, I promise.

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:

> Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
>
> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> software engineering in my university.
>
> My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented it, and for
> some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it.
>
> So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled developers, I ask
> for your opinion.
>
> Is my impression completely wrong ?
>
> Do any of you believe in it ?
>
> Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Matthias Kilian
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 03:48:24PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I have sen many attempts at UML and they all ended in tears.  Not
> surprising because UML is an academic thing

Wasn't it a business thing from the beginning on, as you wrote in
the next paragraph?

> that does not apply to that
> thing we call "reality".  Total waste of time.  But wait, it gets
> better!  If you want to see it fail even more spectacularly use the
> "tools" they have such as rational rose.  Hilarity ensues, I promise.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

dereck
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
Messages like this are the reason I lurk here but seldom say anything.

Yes, we all have our crosses to bear - and some people have the bad luck of
never working with intelligent people.

--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" <[hidden email]>
> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 8:48 PM
> I have sen many attempts at UML and
> they all ended in tears.  Not
> surprising because UML is an academic thing that does not
> apply to that
> thing we call "reality".  Total waste of time.
> But wait, it gets
> better!  If you want to see it fail even more
> spectacularly use the
> "tools" they have such as rational rose.  Hilarity
> ensues, I promise.
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300, Christiano F.
> Haesbaert wrote:
> > Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
> >
> > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this
> boulshit about
> > software engineering in my university.
> >
> > My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented
> it, and for
> > some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it.
> >
> > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled
> developers, I ask
> > for your opinion.
> >
> > Is my impression completely wrong ?
> >
> > Do any of you believe in it ?
> >
> > Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Jonathan Gray
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
Hilarity.

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/software/uk/itsolutions/developer/RSDC2007/Rational_song.mp3

On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 03:48:24PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:

> I have sen many attempts at UML and they all ended in tears.  Not
> surprising because UML is an academic thing that does not apply to that
> thing we call "reality".  Total waste of time.  But wait, it gets
> better!  If you want to see it fail even more spectacularly use the
> "tools" they have such as rational rose.  Hilarity ensues, I promise.
>
> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
> > Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
> >
> > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> > software engineering in my university.
> >
> > My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented it, and for
> > some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it.
> >
> > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled developers, I ask
> > for your opinion.
> >
> > Is my impression completely wrong ?
> >
> > Do any of you believe in it ?
> >
> > Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO
In reply to this post by Lars Nooden-2
> I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> software engineering in my university.

"Unified Modeling Language"...

I think it's just part of all that Java non-sense.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Christiano F. Haesbaert
In reply to this post by dereck
On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Messages like this are the reason I lurk here but seldom say anything.
>
> Yes, we all have our crosses to bear - and some people have the bad luck of
never working with intelligent people.
>

Can you provide a real working example ?
Because no one has ever done that for me.
Even if you can, can you provide 2 or three examples ?
I would think again on the "never working with inteliigent people" part.
Can you or anyone, prove that this works *more often than not* ?
I'm at the point that people say this and that, but know one has
*ever* seen it working.
The whole idea seems like a bunch of crap, anyone who has ever done
any real programming knows that the world is much different than that
(mine is, at least).
But I'm willing to be wrong.


> --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> From: Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]>
>> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
>> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" <[hidden email]>
>> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 8:48 PM
>> I have sen many attempts at UML and
>> they all ended in tears.  Not
>> surprising because UML is an academic thing that does not
>> apply to that
>> thing we call "reality".  Total waste of time.
>> But wait, it gets
>> better!  If you want to see it fail even more
>> spectacularly use the
>> "tools" they have such as rational rose.  Hilarity
>> ensues, I promise.
>>
>> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300, Christiano F.
>> Haesbaert wrote:
>> > Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear my pain:
>> >
>> > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and all this
>> boulshit about
>> > software engineering in my university.
>> >
>> > My feeling is that someone wrote it, never implemented
>> it, and for
>> > some stupid reason, the industry/academia bought it.
>> >
>> > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly skilled
>> developers, I ask
>> > for your opinion.
>> >
>> > Is my impression completely wrong ?
>> >
>> > Do any of you believe in it ?
>> >
>> > Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Darrin Chandler
> Can you provide a real working example ?
> Because no one has ever done that for me.
> Even if you can, can you provide 2 or three examples ?
> I would think again on the "never working with inteliigent people" part.
> Can you or anyone, prove that this works *more often than not* ?
> I'm at the point that people say this and that, but know one has
> *ever* seen it working.
> The whole idea seems like a bunch of crap, anyone who has ever done
> any real programming knows that the world is much different than that
> (mine is, at least).
> But I'm willing to be wrong.

A couple of decades ago I learned a lot about structured analysis,
structured design, blah, blah. UML is the same stuff, basically. Here's
the scoop: as a system designed by geniuses to be performed by idiots it
is a complete failure. If you're an idiot you just follow the rules and
don't understand why and that never works. If you're intelligent and
you're following rules made for idiots then you're an idiot after all.

The only way out is to understand the principles involved and apply them
in a way that works for you, in your situation. A pad of paper may be
helpful also.

I'm really glad I learned about analysis and design, and daily I use
things I learned, but no way in hell am I following any Methodlogy.

--
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
[hidden email]   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

dereck
In reply to this post by Christiano F. Haesbaert
No one has time to provide examples for an email list.  I said in my writeup
that I didn't care for the heavyweight RUP. But I've used in several places
the UML for documentation.  However, if you think that no one is successfully
using UML processes for documentation my suggestion is that you get to a few
UGs to talk to a few people in the flesh.

I meant that you obviously aren't lucky enough to work with good people.  If
you want to make something of that, that's fine with me.  I can flame too
(since that is the specialty of this list).  But you say it will always end in
tears and I say that you are not correct.  That is the nice way to say it.  At
least you did _not_ say that the "code is the documentation".  But you are
wrong that UML never works.  Rational's tools I've not had luck with, but I
stand by my previous writeup on UML.

Again, I'm unafraid of a flame if you want to start it.  But I also have a
3-year-old,  so pointless back-and-forth is something I'm adept at right now.

--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Christiano F. Haesbaert <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: Christiano F. Haesbaert <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> To: "dereck" <[hidden email]>
> Cc: "Marco Peereboom" <[hidden email]>, "OpenBSD Questions"
<[hidden email]>

> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:51 PM
> On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Messages like this are the reason I lurk here but
> seldom say anything.
> >
> > Yes, we all have our crosses to bear - and some people
> have the bad luck of
> never working with intelligent people.
> >
>
> Can you provide a real working example ?
> Because no one has ever done that for me.
> Even if you can, can you provide 2 or three examples ?
> I would think again on the "never working with inteliigent
> people" part.
> Can you or anyone, prove that this works *more often than
> not* ?
> I'm at the point that people say this and that, but know
> one has
> *ever* seen it working.
> The whole idea seems like a bunch of crap, anyone who has
> ever done
> any real programming knows that the world is much different
> than that
> (mine is, at least).
> But I'm willing to be wrong.
>
>
> > --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]>
> >> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it
> works ?
> >> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" <[hidden email]>
> >> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" <[hidden email]>
> >> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 8:48 PM
> >> I have sen many attempts at UML and
> >> they all ended in tears.  Not
> >> surprising because UML is an academic thing that
> does not
> >> apply to that
> >> thing we call "reality".  Total waste of
> time.
> >> But wait, it gets
> >> better!  If you want to see it fail even
> more
> >> spectacularly use the
> >> "tools" they have such as rational rose.
> Hilarity
> >> ensues, I promise.
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300,
> Christiano F.
> >> Haesbaert wrote:
> >> > Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear
> my pain:
> >> >
> >> > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and
> all this
> >> boulshit about
> >> > software engineering in my university.
> >> >
> >> > My feeling is that someone wrote it, never
> implemented
> >> it, and for
> >> > some stupid reason, the industry/academia
> bought it.
> >> >
> >> > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly
> skilled
> >> developers, I ask
> >> > for your opinion.
> >> >
> >> > Is my impression completely wrong ?
> >> >
> >> > Do any of you believe in it ?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

dereck
In reply to this post by VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO
Yep, you are correct.  So, can I get your phone number to send our clients to when they need another pointless opinion intended to start a flame?

Shake out your head gear.  There is a difference between "user programs" and "system programs".  The overwhelming majority of user-land programs are done in OOP languages.  That Java nonsense just happens to be the most popular programming language.  Added with C# (the MS Java) the numbers dwarf all other comers.  Since the vast majority of people are using Java, C#.NET and VB.NET I suppose that the object-oriented nonsense will just fade away.


--- On Wed, 5/5/10, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]> wrote:

> From: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> To: [hidden email], [hidden email]
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:40 PM
> > I'm really sick of hearing about
> UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> > software engineering in my university.
>
> "Unified Modeling Language"...
>
> I think it's just part of all that Java non-sense.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Christiano F. Haesbaert
Ok, now I think we can stop this post.

No one can present a working example.

Sorry for the noise.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by dereck
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 05:05:52PM -0700, dereck wrote:
> Yep, you are correct.  So, can I get your phone number to send our clients to when they need another pointless opinion intended to start a flame?
>
> Shake out your head gear.  There is a difference between "user programs" and "system programs".  The overwhelming majority of user-land programs are done in OOP languages.  That Java nonsense just happens to be the most popular programming language.  Added with C# (the MS Java) the numbers dwarf all other comers.  Since the vast majority of people are using Java, C#.NET and VB.NET I suppose that the object-oriented nonsense will just fade away.

Just like structured programming in the eighties and whatever the bs was
called in the seventies and sixties.  Every decade has its own bs
development methodology that is the moar bettar devmeth but then 10
years later it isnt't.  Yes OOP will go away and be replaced with
something "dynamic" which seems to be the rage right now.

Let me coin an acronym for it.  DML dynamic masturbation language.

Great software has one thing in common, it was developed by a group of
great developers who know what they are doing.  Than there is the rest.

>
>
> --- On Wed, 5/5/10, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > From: VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> > To: [hidden email], [hidden email]
> > Cc: [hidden email]
> > Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:40 PM
> > > I'm really sick of hearing about
> > UML/RUP and all this boulshit about
> > > software engineering in my university.
> >
> > "Unified Modeling Language"...
> >
> > I think it's just part of all that Java non-sense.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by dereck
On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 05:02:07PM -0700, dereck wrote:
> No one has time to provide examples for an email list.  I said in my writeup that I didn't care for the heavyweight RUP. But I've used in several places the UML for documentation.  However, if you think that no one is successfully using UML processes for documentation my suggestion is that you get to a few UGs to talk to a few people in the flesh.

Let me provide you an example of great software that wasn't written
using UML.  OpenBSD.  Took me 5 seconds.

>
> I meant that you obviously aren't lucky enough to work with good people.  If you want to make something of that, that's fine with me.  I can flame too (since that is the specialty of this list).  But you say it will always end in tears and I say that you are not correct.  That is the nice way to say it.  At least you did _not_ say that the "code is the documentation".  But you are wrong that UML never works.  Rational's tools I've not had luck with, but I stand by my previous writeup on UML.
>
> Again, I'm unafraid of a flame if you want to start it.  But I also have a 3-year-old,  so pointless back-and-forth is something I'm adept at right now.
>
> --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Christiano F. Haesbaert <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > From: Christiano F. Haesbaert <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it works ?
> > To: "dereck" <[hidden email]>
> > Cc: "Marco Peereboom" <[hidden email]>, "OpenBSD Questions" <[hidden email]>
> > Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 10:51 PM
> > On 5 May 2010 19:35, dereck <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > Messages like this are the reason I lurk here but
> > seldom say anything.
> > >
> > > Yes, we all have our crosses to bear - and some people
> > have the bad luck of
> > never working with intelligent people.
> > >
> >
> > Can you provide a real working example ?
> > Because no one has ever done that for me.
> > Even if you can, can you provide 2 or three examples ?
> > I would think again on the "never working with inteliigent
> > people" part.
> > Can you or anyone, prove that this works *more often than
> > not* ?
> > I'm at the point that people say this and that, but know
> > one has
> > *ever* seen it working.
> > The whole idea seems like a bunch of crap, anyone who has
> > ever done
> > any real programming knows that the world is much different
> > than that
> > (mine is, at least).
> > But I'm willing to be wrong.
> >
> >
> > > --- On Wed, 5/5/10, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> From: Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]>
> > >> Subject: Re: OT - UML, can someone state that it
> > works ?
> > >> To: "Christiano F. Haesbaert" <[hidden email]>
> > >> Cc: "OpenBSD Questions" <[hidden email]>
> > >> Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 8:48 PM
> > >> I have sen many attempts at UML and
> > >> they all ended in tears.? Not
> > >> surprising because UML is an academic thing that
> > does not
> > >> apply to that
> > >> thing we call "reality".? Total waste of
> > time.
> > >> But wait, it gets
> > >> better!? If you want to see it fail even
> > more
> > >> spectacularly use the
> > >> "tools" they have such as rational rose.?
> > Hilarity
> > >> ensues, I promise.
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, May 05, 2010 at 04:08:47PM -0300,
> > Christiano F.
> > >> Haesbaert wrote:
> > >> > Sorry for such an out of topic thread, hear
> > my pain:
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm really sick of hearing about UML/RUP and
> > all this
> > >> boulshit about
> > >> > software engineering in my university.
> > >> >
> > >> > My feeling is that someone wrote it, never
> > implemented
> > >> it, and for
> > >> > some stupid reason, the industry/academia
> > bought it.
> > >> >
> > >> > So as I regard the openbsd folks as highly
> > skilled
> > >> developers, I ask
> > >> > for your opinion.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is my impression completely wrong ?
> > >> >
> > >> > Do any of you believe in it ?
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks.

12