Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 188 posts

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#161

Post by lisper »

dpark wrote: post #160
lisper wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the diagram becomes far easier than a text description If the text is hyperlinked it can be every bit as easy to follow as a diagram. In fact, it can be easier if things are really complicated because it allows you to focus your attention more easily just on the parts that matter to you at any given time.

I don't agree with this at all. People naturally draw diagrams to demonstrate complex things. Any time a technical discussion gets complex, someone walks to a whiteboard or pulls out a piece of paper and starts drawing flows or interactions or whatever to clarify the discussion. Never have I seen someone say, "this is getting hard to follow, let me write some prose". If class diagrams are useless then so are bar grap…

No, graphs and scatter plots are useful because the spatial distribution of markings actually conveys useful information: things that are physically close to each other are mathematically close to each other. But most UML diagrams aren't like that. And even for the ones that do try to convey information that has spatial analogs (like containment) UML doesn't actually take advantage of spatial relationships between elements. For example, the natural way to express containment is by putting one element inside the other in the diagram. That makes it obvious what contains what. But that's not how UML does it.

Just about the only diagram that has a natural mapping from spatial relationships of the diagram elements to the actual underlying semantics is the sequence diagram.

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#162

Post by moss »

I'll often use sequence diagrams or entity relationship diagrams when I need to explain how a piece of code works (or even just visualize it for myself). I don't tend to be very pedantically correct about it, but having a picture makes it a lot easier to follow how different pieces fit together. I generally leave out a lot of the less important details when doing this.

I wouldn't generally use it to design code that hadn't been written yet. There's a lot you only discover once you get something working, and that needs to inform the design.

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#163

Post by dpark »

lisper wrote: post #161
dpark wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with this at all. People naturally draw diagrams to demonstrate complex things. Any time a technical discussion gets complex, someone walks to a whiteboard or pulls out a piece of paper and starts drawing flows or interactions or whatever to clarify the discussion. Never have I seen someone say, "this is getting hard to follow, let me write some prose". If class diagrams are useless then so are bar grap…

No, graphs and scatter plots are useful because the spatial distribution of markings actually conveys useful information: things that are physically close to each other are mathematically close to each other. But most UML diagrams aren't like that. And even for the ones that do try to convey information that has spatial analogs (like containment) UML doesn't actually take advantage of spatial relationships between el…

"Spatial" isn't particularly meaningful when talking about classes, so it's not surprising that UML doesn't generally attempt to express that.

We can probably just agree to disagree here. I think class diagrams are often quite useful. They existed before UML and they are used even by people who don't use UML.

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#164

Post by sgt101 »

lkrubner wrote: post #156

UML was, in some sense, an expression of a certain kind of politics: ------------- "And there is an explicitly political idea that drove OOP to its peak in the 1990s: the idea of outsourcing. The idea of outsourcing software development rested on some assumptions about how software development should work, in particular the idea of the “genius” architect, backed by an army of morons who act as secretaries, taking dic…

I was there until Java... the truth is that C++ in 1997 was a nightmare wrapped in a barbed wire horror story IF YOU WERE WRITING ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE java was a god send.

Ok, it's wordy, ok it doesn't have a REPL but if you were living the life 20 years ago it was a godsend.

The downside was that it took about £300 a day out of the market for contractors in 3 years.

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#165

Post by edem »

I sometimes create UML diagrams but I try to simplify them as much as possible. Sequence and Entity relationship diagrams are useful but the rest is rubbish IMHO. I tend to use them only when I'm in the planning phase but I ditch them when they become obsolete and the application is ready. This might not be the best workflow but updating diagrams is horrible. You also can't really use UML for functional languages like Clojure. I feel that they are becoming more obsolete with each passing year.

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#166

Post by kpil »

lkrubner wrote: post #156

UML was, in some sense, an expression of a certain kind of politics: ------------- "And there is an explicitly political idea that drove OOP to its peak in the 1990s: the idea of outsourcing. The idea of outsourcing software development rested on some assumptions about how software development should work, in particular the idea of the “genius” architect, backed by an army of morons who act as secretaries, taking dic…

I think everything you say is true except the jab at java, which is also true, but not all the truth...

Besides, during the 90s the idea seemed to be that that the next step after the outsourcing was actually no programmers at all. UML and 4gl systems would handle all the complexities and laymen domain experts could just define all bread and butter administrative systems they like - no expensive and socially awkward nerds in the basement necessary...

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#167

Post by jacobolus »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #112
agumonkey wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use to argue with a friend about this, I was so fed up with all the UML mystique, I wanted to release CarréFleches 1.0 (french for boxes and arrows, with the appropriate lack of grammar to mock the fluff behind UML). Seems like everybody use the same "subset" that is graphs of things related to each others ... what a mystery.

OT: just realised where the word fletcher (an arrow-maker) comes from. In French does fleches refer always to the whole arrow? Just it sounds a bit like "flight" which is the layman's English term for the feathers.

etymonline: fletcher (n.) "arrow-maker," early 14c. (as a surname attested from 1203), from Old French flechier "maker of arrows," from fleche "arrow," which is probably from Frankish, from Proto-Germanic •fleug-ika- (compare Old Low German fliuca, Middle Dutch vliecke), from PIE •pleuk- "to fly," extended form of root •pleu- "to flow" (see pluvial).

I think it pretty much stands for the whole arrow, but comes from the word for “flying” back in old Germanic languages – but via the arrow being a flying projectile, not from the feathers per se.

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#168

Post by sidlls »

Slackwise wrote: post #152
ainot wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FP crowd is so vocal. Reformed math geeks who are trying to evangelize the world of programming to do things one way; their way.

> Reformed math geeks I presume you mean the Haskell crowd? The Lisp crowd is more about expression rather than "correctness" and rigidity. FP doesn't really have a formal definition. > trying to evangelize the world of programming to do things one way; their way. I think the world of computing is shifting towards a lot of async work, and if you've ever written large threaded apps, having too much state becomes the g…

What's old is new again, it seems.

Re: Ask HN: Do you still use UML?

#169

Post by lisper »

dpark wrote: post #163
lisper wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, graphs and scatter plots are useful because the spatial distribution of markings actually conveys useful information: things that are physically close to each other are mathematically close to each other. But most UML diagrams aren't like that. And even for the ones that do try to convey information that has spatial analogs (like containment) UML doesn't actually take advantage of spatial relationships between el…

"Spatial" isn't particularly meaningful when talking about classes, so it's not surprising that UML doesn't generally attempt to express that. We can probably just agree to disagree here. I think class diagrams are often quite useful. They existed before UML and they are used even by people who don't use UML.

> We can probably just agree to disagree here

That works for me :-)

Post reply on HN