Has anyone used UML?

[John Bell]

After replying to the original query on this thread (and being in a similar
situation to the original poster inasmuch as I am in the beginning stages of using
UML as a diagraming method - as per my initial post I don't see UML as anything
like a development methodology)  and trying out ArgoUML, dia, MetaEdit+ remodelling
a completed Python project and several semi-developed tools, I would follow the
implicit advice of the following poster and go with dia if programming in Python.
The simplicity of the python class model (cf. eg C++ eg methods look like
attributes, no member privacy hierarchy, lack of reference parameters etc) is
better suited to dia than the other tools which are designed for more complex
syntactic models.  Despite a couple of annoying bugs which will presumably be
fixed, dia has the advantage of being very easy to use and has one of the great
advantages of Python itself: Speed of development.

John

Harry George wrote:

> I've done "software engineering" data and process modeling in big
> death march projects and in small XP efforts.  In every case, the
> problem is to use models/diagrams where/when they are needed, not just
> "because they told us to".  And the only way they seem to be
> maintained is if there is no printed documentation -- everything is
> live on the web.  Edit and publish in a 3 second cycle time.
>
> Under these circumstances, UML models (specifically Dia) make sense
> for conceptual modeling, logical data modeling, a dash of DFD's, and
> the occassional state diagram.  The idea is to bring the community of
> players into a high0-level mindmeld as ASAP, not to lock down every
> nuance of the implementation.  Then do design and code reviews on the
> implementation, which conveniently is in an easy-to-read langauge,
> like...python

>
> grante at visi.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>
> > In article <3B1BC755.65510E63 at bt.com>, Alan Gauld wrote:
> > >
> > >> I took a 3 day class on UML once.  My impression: yet another
> > >> "silver bullet" that doesn't work in real life.
> > >
> > >Like any design notation UML is there to communicate. If
> > >the peer group is small enough the advantages are marginal.
> >
> > Agreed. All of the projects I've worked on have been small (1-2
> > people typically, 4-5 max).  Resources are always scarce and
> > when schedule and budget gets tight, maintining the system and
> > design description always seems to be the first thing to fall
> > off the bottom of the priority list.
> >
> >   "Just get the fix released to production, and we'll worry
> >    about updating the documents later..."
> >
> > >If you are working in a distributed group of 20 or more
> > >programmers something likev UML is near essential. Most
> > >of my projects involve several hundreds of programmers
> > >(250 on the current one) and there we simply couldn't
> > >operate without UML.
> >
> > One of the problems I've run into consistently over the past 10
> > years is when management insists on using "big project"
> > methodologies on tiny projects.  Their reasoning seems to go
> > something along the lines of: If one person can do a project
> > like this in nine months using the "seat of the pants" method,
> > then if we make him use Flowcharts/SASD/UML/whatever, then it
> > should only take half as long!
> >
> > >> thought it was marginally useful, but like any other form of
> > >> documentation, if it's not maintained (and it never is, AFAICT)
> > >> it becomes worse than useless.
> > >
> > >It depends on the level that you work at. Architectures don't
> > >vary that much and are useful for maintainers. But code varies
> > >a lot so if you try to use UML for documenting code without
> > >tool support for reverse engineering changes then I agree it
> > >quickly becomes out of date.
> > >
> > >But How else do we communicate design to a new start - it takes
> > >a long time to read a million lines of code.... UML and similar
> > >tools cut that time down by an order of magnitude.
> >
> > I agree that you certainly need something for documenting large
> > systems.  The fashion in what that "something" is has varied
> > over the years, and UML seemed as good as anything (certainly
> > better than some).
> >
> > --
> > Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  -- In 1962, you could
> >                                   at               buy a pair of SHARKSKIN
> >                                visi.com            SLACKS, with a "Continental
> >                                                    Belt," for $10.99!!

--

Regards,
John Bell