Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
One of the Four Core Agile values says "Working Software over comprehensive documentation" and this is explained as a good thing. Furthermore it is explained that rather than written communication (e-mails included), face-to-face meetings are preferred and "more productive".
I would like for someone to explain to me why or how is this a good thing?
In a organization I used to work there were heaps of working software that I had to maintain. The documentation was minimal and it was a nightmare. It didn't help that the programs were not modularized and were very hard to understand and with the most esoteric twists and very disorganized. Comprehensive documentation as very important was one think I took from that experience. It doesn't matter if the software works now if it is not going to work in the near future right?
And on face-to-face meetings, I had the same doubt. I very much prefer e-mails (written) You can say the most outrageous of things when talking but when it is written then it is a deal. Plus if you are in a multinational organization with several languages, it helps a lot
I would like to hear the voice of people with Agile experience. How is the above a good thing? Thanks
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Comprehensive documentation is sometimes seen as a way to demonstrate progress. "If we have a detailed specification and a weighty design document then we are making good progress towards a product delivery"
What working software over comprehensive documentation means is that we view working software as a better demonstration of progress than documentation. This is because comprehensive documentation can give a false level of confidence.
So there is nothing that says avoid doing any documentation. It is just saying that we should only do the documentation that is needed and not just do documentation because it is part of a process.
In your example where there the software is difficult to work with then more documentation may well be needed. Just don't write documents that never get used and offer little value.
Individuals and interaction over process and tools
Face-to-face communication has many advantages over other forms of communication. For example:
People use body language to give context to conversations
People use audible and visual clues as to when to start and stop talking - this helps to make conversations flow
Regular face-to-face discussions often help teams to bond together
Notice though that the Agile manifesto does not mention face-to-face communication. All it says is individuals and interaction. If you and your team have ways of communicating that are as effective as face-to-face communication then that fits just as well within the Agile approach. The important part is that we value interaction and having members of the team work closely with each other.
When all agile recommendations are taken into account there are no issues you mentioned in your question. Working software should also has good code standards and design.
Regarding your particular issue with a lack of documentation unit tests (TDD/BDD) could be very useful. Good code coverage can explain how code should work even better than detailed documentation. Agile methodology also welcomes simplicity so your entire architecture might be over-complicated
Regarding face-to-face communication. Just imagine situation when you detected issue in your product (web-site markup). Instead of writing long email with steps to reproduce and attaching screenshots, you just go to front-end developer sitting in your room or make skype call and start explaining problem. Developer quickly realizes that he forgot to include some script. So your will get answer in minutes while your email can be answered next day.
I think it would be necessary to clarify your needs on using agile first before you want to apply agile.
Agile is the recommended working framework for a highly unpredictable domain(you may also check Cynefin model for identifying your working contexts). In this domain, you do require "working software" and "good communication" to review and revise your development in a short-term iterative process. As a result, you can change and improve your software based on the feedback from your software. This is proven to be the most effective and efficient way to build software in high competitive business world.
However, in your organization, you are maintaining legacy software with limited documentation. This context is totally different from what agile is designed for. You need optimization in your world, not testing or growth seeking. In short, process/tools and documentation are more important.
Regarding email communication, there is no doubt that email makes the deal, but you could never make a deal by just using email. It is the same as how you apply agile. You should apply both face-to-face and email based on different situation.
I would regard Agile as a framework more than a methodology. The concept there is to allow you build your own process based on your own working environment.
Documentation is an expression of a shared vocabulary, so it should be consistent from the epic all the way down to the comments in the code:
Documentation should be comprehensive and understandable. Using examples is recommended.
Language between feature stories, technical stories, pseudocode, and assertions should have naming conventions
A feature that people do not know about is a useless feature.
Lack of documentation can be a symptom of the lack of a marketing plan
A feature that isn't documented is a useless feature. A patch for a new feature must include the documentation.
Lack of documentation can be a symptom of the lack of usability, accessibility, and information architecture
Adjust the documentation. Doing this first gives you an impression of how
your changes affect the user.
Lack of documentation can be a symptom of a lack of focus on the user and the maintainer:
Software is not useful by itself. The executable software is only part of the picture. It is of no use without user manuals, business processes, design documentation, well-commented source code, and test cases. These should be produced as an intrinsic part of the development, not added at the end. In particular, recognize that design documentation serves two distinct purposes:
To allow the developers to get from a set of requirements to an implementation. Much of this type of documentation outlives its usefulness after implementation.
To allow the maintainers to understand how the implementation satisfies the requirements. A document aimed at maintainers is much shorter, cheaper to produce and more useful than a traditional design document.
And understanding the purpose of any project requires building a relationship between the project timeline and the source code history:
Write the change log entries for your changes. This is both to save us the extra work of writing them, and to help explain your changes so we can understand them.
The purpose of the change log is to show people where to find what was changed. So you need to be specific about what functions you changed; in large functions, it’s often helpful to indicate where within the function the change was.
On the other hand, once you have shown people where to find the change, you need not explain its purpose in the change log. Thus, if you add a new function, all you need to say about it is that it is new. If you feel that the purpose needs explaining, it probably does — but put the explanation in comments in the code. It will be more useful there.
References
Vim documentation: develop
SCRUM-PSP: Embracing Process Agility and Discipline (pdf)
Secure Software Development Life Cycle Processes | US-CERT
An Uneasy Marriage? Merging Scrum and TSP (pdf)
TSP/PSP and Agile-SCRUM: Similarities & Differences
GNU Emacs Manual: Sending Patches
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently faced with a very unusual design problem, and hope that a developer wiser than myself might be able to offer some insight.
Background
Without being too specific, I've been hired by a non-profit organisation to assist with the redevelopment of their legacy, but very valuable (in terms of social value) software. The development team is unlike any I've encountered in my time as a software developer, and is comprised of a small number of developers and a larger group of non-programming domain experts. What makes the arrangement unusual is that the domain experts (lets call them content creators), use custom tooling, some of which is based around a prolog expert system engine, to develop web based software components/forms.
The Problem
The system uses a very awkward postback model to perform logical operations server side and return new forms/results. It is slow, and prone to failure. Simple things, like creating html forms using the existing tooling is much more arduous than it should be. As the demand for a more interactive, and performant experience grows, the software developers are finding increasingly that they have to circumvent the expert system/visual tooling used by the content creators, and write new components by hand in javascript. The content creators feel increasingly that their hands are tied, as they are now unable to contribute new components.
Design approach: Traditional/Typical
I have been advocating for the complete abandonment of the previous model and the adoption of a typical software development process. As mentioned earlier, the project has naturally evolved towards this as the non-programmatic development tooling has become incapable of meeting the needs of the business.
The content creators have a very valuable contribution to make however, and I would like to see them focusing on formally specifying the expected behaviour of the software with tools like Cucumber, instead of being involved in implementation.
Design approach: Non-programmatic
My co-worker, who I respect a great deal and suspect is far more knowledgeable than me, feels that the existing process is fine and that we just need to build better tooling. I can't help but feel however that there is something fundamentally flawed with this approach. I have yet to find one instance, either historical or contemporary where this model of software development has been successful. COBOL was developed with the philosophy of allow business people/domain experts to write applications without the need for a programmer, and to my mind all this did was create a new kind of programmer - the COBOL programmer. If it was possible to develop effective systems allowing non-programmers to create non-trivial applications, surely the demand for programmers would be much lower? The only frameworks that I am aware of that roughly fit this model are SAP's Smart Forms and Microsoft's Dynamix AX - both of which are very domain specific ERP systems.
DSLs, Templating Languages
Something of a compromise between the two concepts would be to implement some kind of DSL as a templating language. I'm not even sure that this would be successful however, as all of the content creators, with one exception, are completely non technical.
I've also considered building a custom IDE based on Visual Studio or Net Beans with graphical/toolbox style tooling.
Thoughts?
Is non-programmatic development a fools errand? Will this always result in something unsatisfactory, requiring hands on development from a programmer?
Many thanks if you've taken the time to read this, and I'd certainly appreciate any feedback.
You say:
Something of a compromise between the
two concepts would be to implement
some kind of DSL as a templating
language. I'm not even sure that this
would be successful however, as all of
the content creators, with one
exception, are completely non
technical.
Honestly, this sounds like exactly the approach I would use. Even "non-technical" users can become proficient (enough) in a simple DSL or templating language to get useful work done.
For example, I do a lot of work with scientific modeling software. Many modelers, while being much more at home with the science than with any form of engineering, have been forced to learn one or more programming languages in order to express their ideas in a way they can use. Heck, as far as I know, Fortran is still a required course in order to get a Meteorology degree, since all the major weather models currently in use are written in Fortran.
As a result, there is a certain community of "scientific programming" which is mostly filled with domain experts with relatively little formal software engineering training, expertise, or even interest. These people are more at home with languages/platforms like Matlab, R, and even Visual Basic (since they can use it to script applications like Excel and ESRI ArcMap). Recently, I've seen Python gaining ground in this space as well, mainly I think because it's relatively easy to learn.
I guess my point is that I see strong parallels between this field and your example. If your domain experts are capable of thinking rigorously about their problems (and this may not be the case, but your question is open-ended enough that it might be) then they are definitely capable of expressing their ideas in an appropriate domain-specific language.
I would start by discussing with the content creators some ideas about how they would like to express their decisions and choices. My guess would be that they would be happy to write "code" (even if you don't have to call it code) to describe what they want. Give them a "debugger" (a tool to interactively explore the consequences of their "code" changes) and some nice "IDE" support application, and I think you'll have a very workable solution.
Think of spreadsheets.
Spreadsheets are a simple system that allows non-technical users to make use of a computer's calculation abilities. In doing so, they have opened up computers to solve a great number of tasks which normally would have required custom software developed to solve them. So, yes non-programmatic software development is possible.
On the other hand, look at spreadsheets. Despite their calculational abilities you really would not want as a programmer to have to develop software with them. In the end, many of the techniques that make programming languages better for programmers make them worse for the general population. The ability to define a function, for example, makes a programmer's life much easier, but I think would confuse most others.
Additionally, past a certain point of complexity trying to use a spreadsheet would be a real pain. The spreadsheet works well within the realm for which it was designed. Once you stray too far out that, its just not workable. And again, its the very tools programmers use to deal with complexity which will prevent a system being both widely usable and sufficiently powerful.
I think that for any given problem area, you could develop a system that allows the experts to specify a solution. It will be much harder to develop that system then to solve the problem in the first place. However, if you repeatedly have similiar problems which the experts can develop solutions for, then it might be worthwhile.
I think development by non-developers is doomed to failure. It's difficult enough when developers try it. What's the going failure rate? 50% or higher?
My advice would be to either buy the closest commercial product you can find or hire somebody to help you develop a custom solution with your non-developer maintenance characteristics in mind.
Being a developer means keeping a million details in mind at once and caring about details like version control, deployment, testing, etc. Most people who don't care about those things quickly tire of the complexity.
By all means involve the domain experts. But don't saddle them with development and maintenance as well.
You could be putting your organization at risk with a poorly done solution. If it's important, do it right.
I don't believe any extensive non-programmer solution is going to work. Programming is more than language, it's knowing how to do things reasonably. Something designed to be non-programmer friendly will still almost certainly contain all the pitfalls a programmer knows to avoid even if it's expressed in English or a GUI.
I think what's needed in a case like this is to have the content creators worry about making content and an actual programmer translate that into reasonable computer code.
I have worked with two ERP systems that were meant for non-programmers and in both cases you could make just about every mistake in the book with them.
... Simple things, like creating html forms using the existing tooling is much more arduous than it should be...
More arduous for whom? You're taking a development model that works (however badly) for the non-programming content creators, and because something is arduous for someone you propose to replace that with a model where the content creators are left out in the cold entirely? Sounds crazy to me.
If your content creators can learn custom tooling built around a Prolog rules engine, then they have shown they can learn enough formalism to contribute to the project. If you think other aspects of the development need to be changed, I see only two honorable choices:
Implement the existing formalism ("custom tooling") using the new technology that you think will make things better in other ways. The content creators contribute exactly as they do now.
Design and implement a domain-specific language that handles the impedance mismatch between what your content creators know and can do and the way you and other developers think the work should be done.
Your scenario is a classic case where a domain-specific language is appropriate. But language design is not easy, especially when combined with serious usability questions. If you are lucky you will be able to hire someone to help you who is expert in both language design and usability. But if you are nonprofit, you probably don't have the budget. In this case one possibility is to look for help from another nonprofit—a nearby university, if you have one.
I'd advise you to read this article before attempting to scrap the whole system. I look at it this way. What changed to prompt the redevelopment? Your domain experts haven't forgotten how to use the original system, so you already have some competent "COBOL programmers" for your domain. From your description, it sounds like mostly the performance requirements have changed, and possibly a greater need for web forms.
Therefore, the desired solution isn't to change the responsibilities of the domain experts, it's to increase the performance and make it easier to create web forms. You have the advantage of an existing code base showing exactly what your domain experts are capable of. It would be a real shame not to use it.
I realize Prolog isn't exactly the hottest language around, but there are faster and slower implementations. Some implementations are designed mostly for programmer interactivity and are dynamically interpreted. Some implementations create optimized compiled native code. There are also complex logical programming techniques like memoization that can be used to enhance performance, but probably no one learns them in school anymore. A flow where content creators focus on creating new content and developers focus on optimization could be very workable. Also, Prolog is ideally suited for the model layer, but not so much for the view layer. Moving more of your view layer to a different technology could really pay off.
In general though, 2 thoughts:
You cannot reduce life to algorithms. Everything we know (philosophically, scientifically) and experience demonstrates this. (Sorry, Dr. Minsky).
That said, a Domain-Specific tool that allows non-programmers to express a finite language is definitely doable as several people have given examples. Another example of this type of system is Mathematica and especially Simulink which are used very successfuly over a range of applications. However, the failure of Expert Systems, Fuzzy logic, and Japan's Fifth Generation computer project of the 80's to take-off demonstrate the difficulty in doing this.
Labview is a very successful none programatic programming environment.
What an interesting problem.
I would have to ultimately agree with you, and disagree with your colleague.
The philosophy and approach of Domain Driven Development/Design exists exactly for your purposes, in that it puts paramount importance on the specific knowledge of the experienced domain experts, and on communicating that knowledge to talented software developers.
See, in your issue, there are two distinct things. The domain, and the software. The domain should be understood and specified first and foremost without software development in mind.
And then the transformation to software happens between the communication between domain experts and programmers.
I think trying to build "programming" tools for domain experts is a waste of time.
In Domain Driven Development your domain experts will continue to be important, and you'll end up with better software.
In your colleague's approach you're trying to replace programmers with tool.... maybe in the future, like, start trek future, that will be possible, but today I don't think so.
I am currently struggling with a similar problem in trying to enable healthcare providers to write rules for workflows, which isn't easy because they aren't programmers. You're a programmer not because you went to programming school -- you're a programmer because you think like a programmer. Fortunately, most hospitals have some anesthesiologist or biomedical engineer who thinks like a programmer and can manage to program. The key is to give the non-programmers-who-think-like-programmers a language that they can learn and master.
In my case, I want doctors to be able to formulate simple rules, such as: "If a patient's temperature gets too low, send their doctor a text message". Of course it's more complicated than that because the definition of "too low" depends on the age of the patient, a patient may have many doctors, and so on, but a smart doctor will be able to figure out those rules. The real issue is that the temperature sensor will often fall off the patient and read ambient temperature, meaning that the rule is useless unless you can figure out how to determine that the thermometer is actually reading the patient's temperature.
The big problem I have is that, while it's relatively easy to create a DSL so that doctors can express IF [temperature] [less-than] [lookup-table [age]] THEN [send-text-message], it's much harder to create one that can express all the different heuristics you might need to try before coming up with the right way to make sure the reading is valid.
In your case, you may want to consider how VB became popular: It has a form drawing tool that anybody can easily use to draw forms and set properties on form items. Since not everything can be specified by form properties and data binding, there's a code-behind mode that lets you do complex logic. But to make the tool accessible to beginning programmers, the language is BASIC, so users didn't have to learn about pointers, memory allocation, or data structures.
While you probably wouldn't want to give your users VB, you might consider a hybrid approach. You would have one "language" (it could be graphical, like VB's form designer or Labview) where inexperienced users can easily do the simple stuff, and another language to enable expert users to do the complicated stuff.
I had this as a comment previously but I figured it deserved more merit.
There are definitely a number of successful 'non-programmatic' tools around, off hand I can think of Labview, VPL and graph based (edit: I just noticed this link has more far more than just shaders on it) shaders which are prevalent in 3D applications.
Having said that, I don't know of any which are suited to web based dev (which appears to be your case).
I dout very much the investment on developing such tools would be worth it (unless maybe you could move to sell it as a product as well).
I agree with you - non-technical people will not be able to program anything non-trivial.
Some products try to create what's basically a really simple programming language. The problem is that programming is an aptitude as well as a skill. It takes a certain kind of mindset to think in the sort of logic used by computers, which just can't be abstracted away by any programming language (at least not without without making assumptions that it can't safely make).
I've seen this in action with business people trying to construct workflows in MS Dynamics CRM. Even though the product was clearly intended to allow them to do it without a programmer they just couldn't figure out how to make a loop or an if-else condition work, no matter how "friendly" the UI tried to make it. I watched in amazement as they struggled with something that seemed completely self-obvious to me. After a full day (!) of this they managed to produce a couple of very basic workflows that worked in some cases, but didn't handle edge cases like missing values or invalid data. It was basically a complete waste of time.
Granted, Dynamics CRM isn't exactly the epitome of user-friendliness, but I saw enough to convince me that this is, indeed, a fool's errand.
Now, if your users are not programmers, but still technical people they might be able to learn programming, but that's another story - they've really become "new programmers" rather than "non-programmers" then.
This is a pretty philosophical topic and difficult to answer for every case, but in general...
Is non-programmatic development a fools errand?
Outside of a very narrow scope, yes. Major software vendors have invested billions over the years in creating various packages to try to let non-technical users create & define workflows and processes with limited success. Your best bet is to take advantage of what has been done in that space rather than trying to re-invent it.
Edit:
Sharepoint, InfoPath, some SAP stuff are the examples I'm talking about. As I said above, "a very narrow scope". It's possible to let non-programmers create workflows, complex forms, some domain processes, but that's it. Anything more general-purpose is simply trying to make non-programmers into programmers by giving them very crude tools.
Non programatic software development IS feasable, as long as you are realistic about what non-developers can reasonaby achieve - its all about a compromise between capability and ease of use.
The key is to break the requirements down cleanly into things that the domain experts need to be able to do, and spend time implementing those features in a foolproof way - The classic mistake is to try to let the system to do too much.
For example suppose you want domain experts to be able to create a form with a masked text input:
Most developers will look at that requirement and create a fancy control which accepts some sort of regular expression and lets the domain expert do anything.
This is the classic developer way of looking at things, however it's likely that your domain expert does not understand regular expressions and the developer has missed the point of the reqirement which was for the domain expert to be able to create this form.
A better solution might have been to create a control that can be confgiured to mask either Email addresses or telephone numbers.
Yes this control is far less capable than the first control, and yes the domain experts have to ask developers to extend it when they want to be able to mask to car registration numbers, however the domain experts are able to use it.
It seems that the problem is of organizational nature and cannot be solved by technical means alone.
The root is that content creators are completely non-technical, yet have to perform inherently technical tasks of designing forms and writing Prolog rules. Various designers and DSLs can alleviate their problems, but never solve them.
Either reorganize system and processes so knowledge carriers actually enter knowledge - nothing else; or train content creators to perform necessary development with existing tools or may be DSLs.
Non-programmatic development can save from low-level chores, but striving to set up system once and let users indefinitely and unrestrictedly expand it is certainly a fools errands.
Computer games companies operate like this all the time, so far as I can tell: a few programmers and a lot of content creators who need to be able to control logic as well (like level designers).
It's also probably a healthy discipline to be able to separate your code from the data and rules driving it if you can.
I'm therefore with your colleague, but of course the specifics may not make this general solution appropriate!
What are the best modeling languages to know. What are the most important things to know about the modeling languages. Espically BPMN as it seems like an interesting topic.
I think BPMN may have some use in companies that have very formal approach to writing specifications, the same kind that would use UML for describing every aspect of simple cancel button. Majority of developers heard only of UML and even that is not really well understood, nor employed extensively in practice.
As usual, the really important questions you want to ask are:
What do you want to model?
Who are you writing this for?
If you are doing this for yourself, you may just as well use your own notation made up ad hoc. It will be faster than going through pages of spec written by experts from OMG (Object Management Group, though Oh My God is not a bad explanation either ;-)).
If you need to share the doc with others, UML seems like a good choice. It is sort of understood by the community and all ambiguity you can always rewrite in plain English.
If your client requires BPMN, then well -- read on it and learn it well. Maybe hire consultants to verify if you are doing it right. If you are not required by contract to use it, then -- for Gods sake -- go write code and document it well and not spend too much time pondering which modeling thingy is most hip now. None isn't and none will be any time soon.
IF you are involved in a ERP implementation, getting the business processes right upfront can save you a lot of trouble down the road.
Organisations know surprisingly little about their inner workings and it's the ERP developers that get the beating when their software doesn't fit to the company. If you can soften that clash of cultures by doing a bit of proper analysis before the development phase, then you are doing the right thing.
BPMN is really one of the easiest and most simple methods there is for the job. Making up your own way of describing Business processes is just reinventing the wheel. Check out some of the free tools on the market; BizAgi for instance.
Good luck.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I'm trying to choose a tool for creating UML diagrams of all flavours. Usability is a major criteria for me, but I'd still take more power with a steeper learning curve and be happy. Free (as in beer) would be nice, but I'd be willing to pay if the tool's worth it. What should I be using?
Some context: Recently for graduate school I researched UML tools for usability and UML comprehension in general for an independent project. I also model/architect for a living.
The previous posts have too many answers and not enough questions. A common misunderstanding is that UML is about creating diagrams. Sure, diagrams are important, but really you are creating a model. Here are the questions that should be answered as each vendor product/solution does some things better than others. Note: The listed answers are my view as the best even if other products support a given feature or need.
Are you modeling or drawing? (Drawing - ArgoUML, free implementations, and Visio)
Will you be modeling in the future? (For basic modeling - Community editions of pay products)
Do you want to formalize your modeling through profiles or meta-models? OCL? (Sparx, RSM, Visual Paradigm)
Are you concerned about model portability, XMI support? (GenMyModel, Sparx, Visual Paradigm, Altova)
Do you have an existing set of documents that you need to work with? (Depends on the documents)
Would you want to generate code stubs or full functioning code?(GenMyModel, Visual Paradigm, Sparx, Altova)
Do you need more mature processes such as use case management, pattern creation, asset creation, RUP integration, etc? (RSA/RSM/IBM Rational Products)
Detailed Examples: IBM Rational Software Architect did not implement UML 2.0 all the way when it comes to realizes type relationships when creating a UML profile, but Visual Paradigm and Sparx got it right.
Ok, that was way too detailed, so a simpler example would be ArgoUML, which has no code generation features and focuses on drawing more than the modeling aspect of UML. Sparx and Visual Paradigm do UML really well and generate code well, however, hooking into project lifecycles and other process is where RSM/RSA is strong.
Watch out for closed or product specific code generation processes or frameworks as you could end up stuck with that product.
This is a straight brain dump so a couple details may not be perfect, however, this should provide a general map to the questions and solutions to looking into.
NEW - Found a good list of many UML tools with descriptions. Wiki UML Tool List
For sequence diagrams, only, try websequencediagrams.com. It's a freemium (free for the basic tasks, paid for advanced features) product, and lets you quickly bang out a diagram without any fussing around with lines and stencils.
Alice->Bob: Authentication Request
note left of Bob: Bob thinks about it
Bob->Alice: Authentication Response
For me it's Enterprise Architect from Sparx Systems. A very rounded UML tool for a very reasonable price.
Very strong feature list including: integrated project management, baselining, export/import (including export to html), documentation generation from the model, various templates (Zachman, TOGAF, etc.), IDE plugins, code generation (with IDE plugins available for Visual Studio, Eclipse & others), automation API - the list goes on.
Oh yeah, don't forget support for source control directly from inside the tool (SVN, CVS, TFS & SCC).
I would also stay away from Visio - you only get diagrams, not a model. Rename a class in one place in a UML modelling tool and you rename in all places. This is not the case in Visio!
For my simple & short UML working,
I've used this tool:
StarUML - http://staruml.sourceforge.net/en/
Great free software for UML drawing.
Although the original Star UML is no longer maintained, there's now a fork called White Star UML, which is actively developed.
As I usually use UML more as a communication tool rather than a modeling tool I sometimes have the need to flex the language a bit, which makes the strict modeling tools quite unwieldy. Also, they tend to have a large overhead for the occasional drawing. This also means I don't give tools that handle round-trip modeling well any bonus points. With this in mind...
When using Visio, I tend to use these stencils for my UMLing needs (the built in kind of suck). It could be that I have grown used to it as it is the primary diagramming tool at my current assignment.
OmniGraffle also has some UML stencils built in and more are available at Graffletopia, but I wouldn't recommend that as a diagramming tool as it has too many quirks (quirks that are good for many things, but not UML). Free trial though, so by all means... :)
I've been trying out MagicDraw a bit, but while functional, I found the user interface distracting.
Otherwise i find the Topcased an interesting project (or group of projects). Last I used it it still had some bugs, but it worked, and seems to have evolved nicely since. Works great on any Eclipse-enabled platform. Free as in speech and beer :)
As for the diagramming tool Dia, it's quite ugly (interface and resulting drawings), but it does get the job done. An interesting modeling tool free alternative is Umbrello, but I haven't really used it much.
I definitely agree with mashi that whiteboards are great (together with a digital camera or cellphone).
Probably some of the nicest tools I've used belong to the Rational family of tools.
You may be looking for an automated tool that will automatically generate a lot of stuff for you. But here's a free, generally powerful diagramming tool useful not only for UML but for all kinds of diagramming tasks. It accepts as input and outputs to a wide variety of commonly used file formats. It's called yEd, and it's worth a look
Visual Paradigm for UML http://content.usa.visual-paradigm.com/websiteimages/images/products/vpuml60/vpumltitle.gif
I'm very fond of Visual Paradigm for UML It's very powerful and has a free Community Edition and cheap Personal Edition as well.
Agilian http://content.usa.visual-paradigm.com/websiteimages/images/products/ag10/agtitle.gif
For Agile modeling there's also Agilian which is a bit more flexible, adds extra features to support smartboards and knows mind-mapping as well.
The thing I like most about their products is the flexibility. I'm using Enterprise Architect at work nowadays but I think it's not smart enough. I want to be able to quick-brainstorm some sequence diagrams and have the application keep my model up-to-date in the background, something VPUML does a very good job at.
In my opinion it's way better than Enterprise Architect, though that is a great tool as well :)
Take a look at BOUML: multiplatform (QT), works pretty well and supports colaborative work.
BOUML is a free UML 2 tool box (under development) allowing you to specify and generate code in C++, Java, Idl, Php and Python.
BOUML runs under Unix/Linux/Solaris, MacOS X(Power PC and Intel) and Windows.
From Wikipedia:
The releases prior to version 4.23 are free software licensed under GPL. BOUML 5 and later is proprietary software.
If you're looking to get out the door and working on UML without having to learn a complex new tool I would check out Violet UML. I've used it to some pretty great success in the past.
PlantUML is an open-source markup-language-to-UML-diagram tool in Java that deserves to be mentioned here. It ranks high on the usability scale because of its intuitive syntax for the various diagrams and diagram components.
Dia is a possible choice. It's definitely not the best tool, but it is functional.
Enterprise Architect from Sparx systems is the best tool I've used. A bit expensive at $199 (professional edition), but IMO it's worth it.
I will add UMLet which I haven't tried yet, but have been selected at my office to start doing diagrams.
Looks simple, diagrams aren't sexy, but it seems quite complete with regard to the kind of diagrams you can do. Seems to have good export capabilities too (important!), is flexible can support custom components) and can be used as Eclipse plugin.
Astah UML (ex-JUDE) is pretty good.
I haven't been able to find a top-notch free UML diagramming tool, but if you're interested in pure diagramming, as opposed to round-trip-engineering, I'd go with Microsoft Visio. If you want full round-trip engineering, Rational Rose.
This list of UML tools on Wikipedia might also come in handy.
Pen and paper. If you can get the scan into a vector format, that may be useful when making minor amendments.
You should try Creately. Runs in your browser and can do team collaboration.
supports sequence diagrams, class, ER, usecase etc. works great and has a free version available.
Creately.com
You can also check out Lucid Chart for uml and other types of diagramming.
Don't forget yuml.me, I love it.
http://plantuml.sourceforge.net/index.html
In my practice i use Sequence Diagram Editor. it is really fast and helpful tool. the one thing i don't like about it is that it is commercial product, not free.
I like VisualParadigm mentioned before in this thread. It's powerful and easy to use I think it gives most power comparing to other tools.
If you need something simple, quick and easy (and free) there is a great tool called UMLet - I highly recommend this. I've tried many of UML diagramming tools and this the simplest one (and it still allows to do great diagrams). This is my choice:)
Obviously if you are serious about UML in the long run you need to use a software UML tool like the ones suggested in the other answers, but I've found that a whiteboard is one of the best tools for UML diagramming, especially during the design phase, or when you are exploring different alternatives. Nothing beats a whiteboard for speed/flexibility in my mind. They are also great for collaboration assuming you are collocated physically.
In my opinion StarUML is the best.
I can't believe no one has mentioned NetBeans UML Editor, it's great and satisfied all of my Java based UML requirments.
This after I tested JDeveloper UML, ArgoUML and StarUML.
I recently conducted a poll "What UML Tools do you use?" in my blog. NetBeans UML was was the top opensource choice and Enterprise Architect was the top commercial choice.
You can create UML class, sequence, component, use case, and activity diagrams in Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate. You can link these diagrams to Team Foundation work items so you can plan and track development and test work. You can also create sequence, dependency graphs, and layer diagrams from code and use Architecture Explorer to browse and explore your solution.
I've posted more links on my profile for more info.
You might want to take a look at MagicDraw or Visual Paradigm for UML. Both offer community editions that, of course, don't span the full feature range, but may well be sufficient if you want to create diagrams only and not generate code or do full round-trip engineering.
Rational and Together/J are best-of-breed products, but expensive.
In my experience, I've enjoyed Eclipse Omondo and Sparx Enterprise Architect. Omondo integrates nicely with Eclipse for code generation, and has a very intuitive feel. However, it is strongly tied to Java. Sparx is a good tool for the price point, but lacks the full range of UML 2.0 diagrams.
Do NOT bother with Poseidon. It is buggy, bloated, and unusuable for all intents and purposes.
For sequence diagrams you can also try Trace Modeler. It's not free but it has a great interface, very friendly and productive. You can use it on any platform.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
In college I've had numerous design and UML oriented courses, and I recognize that UML can be used to benefit a software project, especially use-case mapping, but is it really practical? I've done a few co-op work terms, and it appears that UML is not used heavily in the industry. Is it worth the time during a project to create UML diagrams? Also, I find that class diagrams are generally not useful, because it's just faster to look at the header file for a class. Specifically which diagrams are the most useful?
Edit: My experience is limited to small, under 10 developer projects.
Edit: Many good answers, and though not the most verbose, I belive the one selected is the most balanced.
Using UML is like looking at your feet as you walk. It's making conscious and explicit something that you can usually do unconsciously. Beginners need to think carefully about what they're doing, but a professional programmer already knows what they're doing. Most of the time, writing the code itself is quicker and more effective than writing about the code, because their programming intuition is tuned to the task.
It's not just about what you're doing though. What about the new hire who comes in six months from now and needs to come up to speed on the code? What about five years from now when everyone currently working on the project is gone?
It's incredibly helpful to have some basic up to date documentation available for anyone who joins the project later. I don't advocate full blown UML diagrams with method names and parameters (WAY too difficult to maintain), but I do think that a basic diagram of the components in the system with their relationships and basic behavior is invaluable. Unless the design of the system changes drastically, this information shouldn't change a lot even as the implementation is tweaked.
I've found that the key to documentation is moderation. No one is going to read 50 pages of full blown UML diagrams with design documentation without falling asleep a few pages in. On the other hand, most people would love to get 5-10 pages of simple class diagrams with some basic descriptions of how the system is put together.
The other case where I've found UML to be useful is for when a senior developer is responsible for designing a component but then hands the design to a junior developer to implement.
In a sufficiently complex system there are some places where some UML is considered useful.
The useful diagrams for a system, vary by applicability.
But the most widely used ones are:
Class Diagrams
State Diagrams
Activity Diagrams
Sequence Diagrams
There are many enterprises who swear by them and many who outright reject them as an utter waste of time and effort.
It's best not to go overboard and think what's best for the project you are on and pick the stuff that is applicable and makes sense.
Using UML is like looking at your feet as you walk. It's making conscious and explicit something that you can usually do unconsciously. Beginners need to think carefully about what they're doing, but a professional programmer already knows what they're doing. Most of the time, writing the code itself is quicker and more effective than writing about the code, because their programming intuition is tuned to the task.
The exception is why you find yourself in the woods at night without a torch and it's started to rain - then you need to look at your feet to avoid falling down. There are times when the task you've taken on is more complicated than your intuition can handle, and you need to slow down and state the structure of your program explicitly. Then UML is one of many tools you can use. Others include pseudocode, high-level architecture diagrams and strange metaphors.
Generic work-flow and DFDs can be very useful for complex processes. All other diagramming (ESPECIALLY UML) has, in my experience, without exception been a painful waste of time and effort.
I'd have to disagree, UML is used all over the place - anywhere a IT project is being designed UML will usually be there.
Now whether it is being used well is another matter.
As Stu said, I find both Use Cases (along with the use case descriptions) and activity diagrams to be the most helpful from a developer point of view.
Class diagram can be very useful when trying to show relationships, as well as object attributes, such as persistence. When it comes to adding ever single attribute or property they are usually overkill, especially as they often become out of date quickly once code is written.
One of the biggest problems with UML is the amount of work required to keep it up to date once code is being generated, as there are few tools that can re-engineer UML from code, and few still that do it well.
I will qualify my answer by mentioning that I don't have experience in large (IBM-like) corporate development environments.
The way I view UML and the Rational Unified Process is that it's more TALKING about what you're going to do than actually DOING what you're going to do.
(In other words it's largely a waste of time)
Throw away only in my opinion. UML is a great tool for communicating ideas, the only issue is when you store and maintain it because you are essentially creating two copies of the same information and this is where it usually blows.
After the initial round of implementation most of the UML should be generated from the source code else it will go out of date very quickly or require a lot of time (with manual errors) to keep up to date.
I co-taught a senior-level development project course my last two semesters in school. The project was intended to be used in a production environment with local non-profits as paying clients. We had to be certain that code did what we expected it to and that the students were capturing all the data necessary to meet the clients' needs.
Class time was limited, as was my time outside of the classroom. As such, we had to perform code reviews at every class meeting, but with 25 students enrolled individual review time was very short. The tool we found most valuable in these review sessions were ERD's, class diagrams and sequence diagrams. ERD's and class diagrams were done only in Visual Studio, so the time required to create them was trivial for the students.
The diagrams communicated a great deal of information very quickly. By having a quick overview of the students' designs, we could quickly isolate problem areas in their code and perform a more detailed review on the spot.
Without using diagrams, we would have had to take the time to go one by one through the students' code files looking for problems.
I am coming to this topic a little late and will just try an clarify a couple minor points. Asking if UML is useful as far too broad. Most people seemed to answer the question from the typical/popular UML as a drawing/communication tool perspective. Note: Martin Fowler and other UML book authors feel UML is best used for communication only. However, there are many other uses for UML. Above all, UML is a modeling language that has notation and diagrams mapped to the logical concepts. Here are some uses for UML:
Communication
Standardized Design/Solution documentation
DSL (Domain Specific Language) Definition
Model Definition (UML Profiles)
Pattern/Asset Usage
Code Generation
Model to Model transformations
Given the uses list above the posting by Pascal is not sufficient as it only speaks to diagram creation. A project could benefit from UML if any of the above are critical success factors or are problem areas that need a standardized solution.
The discussion should expanded out from how UML can be over kill or applied to small projects to discuss when UML makes sense or will actually improve the product/solution as that is when UML should be used. There are situations where UML for one developer could sense as well, such as Pattern Application or Code Generation.
UML has worked for me for years. When I started out I read Fowler's UML Distilled where he says "do enough modelling/architecture/etc.". Just use what you need!
From a QA Engineer's perspective, UML diagrams point out potential flaws in logic and thought. Makes my job easier :)
Though this discussion has long been inactive, I have a couple of -to my mind important- points to add.
Buggy code is one thing. Left to drift downstream, design mistakes can get very bloated and ugly indeed. UML, however, is self-validating. By that I mean that in allowing you to explore your models in multiple, mathematically closed and mutually-checking dimensions, it engenders robust design.
UML has another important aspect: it "talks" directly to our strongest capability, that of visualisation. Had, for example, ITIL V3 (at heart simple enough) been communicated in the form of UML diagrams, it could have been published on a few dozen A3 foldouts. Instead, it came out in several tomes of truly biblical proportions, spawning an entire industry, breathtaking costs and widespread catatonic shock.
I believe there may be a way to utilize Cockburn style UML fish,kite, and sea-level use cases as described by Fowler in his book "UML Distilled." My idea was to employ Cockburn use cases as an aid for code readability.
So I did an experiment and there is a post here about it with the Tag "UML" or "FOWLER." It was a simple idea for c#. Find a way to embed Cockburn use cases into the namespaces of programming constructs (such as the class and inner class namespaces or by making use of the namespaces for enumerations). I believe this could be a viable and simple technique but still have questions and need others to check it out. It could be good for simple programs that need a kind of pseudo-Domain Specific Language which can exist right in the midst of the c# code without any language extensions.
Please check out the post if you are interested. Go here.
I think the UML is useful thought I think the 2.0 spec has made what was once a clear specification somewhat bloated and cumbersome. I do agree with the edition of timing diagrams etc since they filled a void...
Learning to use the UML effectively takes a bit of practice. The most important point is to communicate clearly, model when needed and model as a team. Whiteboards are the best tool that I've found. I have not seen any "digital whiteboard software" that has managed to capture the utility of an actual whiteboard.
That being said I do like the following UML tools:
Violet - If it were any more simple it would be a piece of paper
Altova UModel - Good tool for Java and C# Modeling
MagicDraw - My favorite commercial tool for Modeling
Poseidon - Decent tool with good bang for the buck
StarUML - Best open source modeling tool
UML diagrams are useful for capturing and communicating requirements and ensuring that the system meets those requirements. They can be used iteratively and during various stages of planning, design, development, and testing.
From the topic: Using Models within the Development Process at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd409423%28VS.100%29.aspx
A model can help you visualize the world in which your system works, clarify users' needs, define the
architecture of your system, analyze the code, and ensure that your code meets the requirements.
You might also want to read my response to the following post:
How to learn “good software design/architecture”? at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/268231/how-to-learn-good-software-design-architecture/2293489#2293489
I see sequence diagrams and activity diagrams used fairly often. I do a lot of work with "real-time" and embedded systems that interact with other systems, and sequence diagrams are very helpful in visualizing all the interactions.
I like to do use-case diagrams, but I haven't met too many people who think they are valuable.
I've often wondered whether Rational Rose is a good example of the kinds of applications you get from UML-model-based design. It's bloated, buggy, slow, ugly, ...
I found UML not really useful for very small projects, but really suitable for larger ones.
Essentially, it does not really matter what you use, you just have to keep two things in mind:
You want some sort of architecture planning
You want to be sure that everyone in the team is actually using the same technology for project planning
So UML is just that: A standard on how you plan your projects. If you hire new people, there are more likely to know any existing standard - be it UML, Flowchard, Nassi-Schneiderman, whatever - rather than your exising in-house stuff.
Using UML for a single developer and/or a simple software project seems overkill to me, but when working in a larger team, I would definitely want some standard for planning software.
UML is useful, yes indeed! The main uses I've made of it were:
Brainstorming about the ways a piece of software should work. It makes easy to communicate what you are thinking.
Documenting the architecture of a system, it's patterns and the main relationships of its classes. It helps when someone enters your team, when you're leaving and want to make sure your successor will understand it, and when you eventually forget what the hell that little class was meant for.
Documenting any architectural pattern you use on all your systems, for the same reasons of the dot above
I only disagree with Michael when he says that using UML for a single developer and/or a simple software project seems overkill to him. I've used it on my small personal projects, and having them documented using UML saved me a lot of time when I came back to them seven months later and had completely forgotten how I had built and put together all those classes.
One of the problems I have with UML is the understandability of the specification. When I try to really understand the semantics of a particular diagram I quickly get lost in the maze of meta-models and meta-meta-models. One of the selling points of UML is that it is less ambiguous than natural language. However, if two, or more, engineers interpret a diagram differently, it fails at the goal.
Also, I've tried asking specific questions about the super-structure document on several UML forums, and to members of the OMG itself, with little or no results. I don't think the UML community is mature enough yet to support itself.
Coming from a student, I find that UML has very little use. I find it ironic that PROGAMERS have yet to develop a program that will automatically generate the things that you have said are necessary. It would be extremely simple to design a feature into Visual Studio that could pull pieces of the data, seek for definitions, and product answers sufficent so that anyone could look at it, great or small, and understand the program. This would also keep it up to date because it would take the information directly from the code to produce the information.
UML is used as soon as you represent a class with its fields and methods though it's just a kind of UML diagram.
The problem with UML is that the founders book is too vague.
UML is just a language, it's not really a method.
As for me, I really find annoying the lack of UML schema for Opensource Projects. Take something like Wordpress, you just have a database schema, nothing else. You have to wander around the codex api to try to get the big picture.
UML has its place. It becomes increasingly important as the size of the project grows. If you have a long running project, then it is best to document everything in UML.
UML seems to good for large projects with large teams of people. However I've worked in small teams where communication is better.
Using UML-esque diagrams is good though, especially in the planning stage. I tend to think in code, so I find writing large specs hard. I prefer to write down the inputs' and outputs' and leave the developers to design the bit in the middle.
I believe UML is useful just for the fact that it gets people to think about the relationships between their classes. It is a good starting point to start thinking about such relationships, but it is definitely not a solution for everybody.
My belief is that the use of UML is subjective to the situation in which the development team is working.
In my experience:
The ability to create and communicate meaningful code diagrams is a necessary skill for any software engineer who is developing new code, or attempting to understand existing code.
Knowing the specifics of UML - when to use a dashed line, or a circle endpoint - is not quite as necessary, but is still good to have.
UML is useful in two ways:
Technical side: a lot of people (manager and some functional analyst) think that UML is a luxury feature because The code is the documentation: you start coding, after you debug and fix. The sync of UML diagrams with code and analisys force you to understand well the requests of the customer;
Management side: the UMl diagrams are a mirror of the requires of the customer who is inaccurate: if you code without UML, maybe you can find a bug in requires after a lot of hours of work. The diagrams UML allow you to find the possible controversal points and to resolve before the coding =>help your planning.
Generally, all the projects without UML diagrams have a superficial analysis or they have short size.
if you're in linkedin group SYSTEMS ENGINEERS, see my old discussion.
UML is definitely helpful just as junit is essential. It all depends how you sell the idea. Your program will work without UML just as it would work without unit tests. Having said that, you should create do UML as along it is connected to your code, i.e when you update UML diagrams it updates your code, or when you update your code it auto generates the UML. Don't do just for the sake of doing it.
UML definetly has its place in the industry. Imagine you are building software for Boing aircraft or some other complex system. UML and RUP would be great help here.
In the end UML only exist because of RUP. Do we need UML or any of its related stuff to use Java/.Net ? The practical answer is they have their own documenation (javadoc etc) which is sufficient and lets us get our job done!
UML no thanx.
UML is just one of methods for communication within people.
Whiteboard is better.