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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I was having a conversation last week with a coworker about architecture (real architecture, as in designing buildings). During our talk it came up that architectural blueprints give an architect, civil engineer, and contractor all the detail they need to build something. It got both of us thinking about the state of software engineering and that there is no universally adopted approach for describing the design of software.
We have UML, but I find that it is often hard to convey enough detail without the diagrams being overly complex. Are there good examples of large software that was designed out using elaborate UML diagrams?
Then again, is having a large set of software blueprints even useful? After all refactoring and rebuilding software is much cheaper than rebuilding a skyscraper. Are architectural blueprints the wrong analogy for software design? Is there a better analogy that you can think of?
I think you can't compare software architecture with real architecture. When you build a house you have to have everything planned in advance and what's more important you also can plan almost everything in advance.
Recently I read that software engineering is more similar to gardening than it is to real architecture. I think this comparison comes closer to reality: you can't know what will work out and what won't; you have to rework things that seemed good in theory but prove to be impractical and you can constantly improve your plan while your garden/software is getting more complete.
In summary: Software blueprints shouldn't have the same level of detail than blueprints for building houses because more often than not you find that you simply cannot stick to your original plan.
Architectural blueprints are a nearly-precise representation of the actual house. They are not - usually - an abstraction conforming to a model of how houses should look, they are a representation of how the house will be.
Contrast that with UML/Flowcharts/Rational Rose/Methodology-of-the-month - those are models. They abstract away implementation details, and presume that a given model(Say, OO) is how software should be, while in reality, software is always breaking those abstractions, because the models are not a good representation.
In a sense, this ties into a question of explanatory power and computability: a house blueprint is a fixed representation with a fixed expression, and a fixed input; whereas a software blueprint must account for variable input, possibly even of potentially unbounded length. Software that permits plugins or other "computing" tie-ins now has what amounts to a Turing machine operator embedded into it, which gives rise to a host of unpredictability. So the input space of software vis-a-vis a house is mathematically larger, meaning the representational techniques must be correspondingly more computationally powerful. And this is where UML et al. falls down - they are not homomorphic with real software.
I'd say that designing software is closer to Mad-Libs than blueprints
One of the arguments made in Software Factories: Assembling Applications with Patterns, Models, Frameworks, and Tools is that UML is not adequate. Even with the addition of constraints, it is still unclear. Among other things, it does not express the authors intent sufficiently that good code could be reliably generated.
UML is fine, but photographs of whiteboard diagrams drawn roughly are just as good or better in practice (in a time/cost sense of things)
So it's more like drawing a strategy in the sand before lanching an attack, that attitude seems to work better in most cases.
Besides half the time UML gets drawn by some guy with lots of imagination and no investment in the actual implementation.
For large, computationally dense, long-lived, safety-critical, software systems like DoD and FAA weapons and sensor systems, blueprints are essential to long term success. (phew, that was a mouthful :)) Without a set of blueprints for these behemoths, maintainers, and even the original developers, will experience distress and frustration when they try to locate/fix bugs or add major features. Without blueprints, incorporating changes, even small ones, will become a high risk game and failure could mean the loss of lives downstream.
Having said that, UML and it's offspring SysML, are (right now) the only game in town. Modeling and abstraction are important tools in the battle against ambiguity and complexity and they'll become more important in the future. The sooner they are embraced by people who want to grow, the better.
Thanx for listening.
I have just completed a successful C#/Sql Server project where I used a UML diagram to flesh out the application design. That UML diagram avoided any misunderstandings about what the application was designed to do and not do. All class relationships along with the class deletion rules (composite, aggregate, none) were spelled out. Along with a couple of easy to understand State diagrams and some OCL (Object Constraint Language), it was a breeze to discuss with the stakeholders how the application was supposed to work. UML and OCL abstract out a tremendous amount of mundane and low level programming that I was able to avoid. UML and OCL are simple enough that users can understand what is going on under the hood. When my users ask how calculations were arrived at, I simply refer them to the UML and OCL. What could be easier? So, yes, IMHO UML is very appropriate in making software blueprints. There is something to said about employing domain driven development.
The combination of Text + Diagrams is usually the best way to explain how your architecture works. Rational Rose can only get you so far.
I think any metaphor is only going to stretch so far. You will get value comparing some aspects of programming to building houses and also from comparing different aspects to gardening / playing chess/ reading the dictionary whilst standing on your head...
I think it is easier in building to specify what level of detail is required for a particular project as there are generally accepted practices, that have been around for some time, for managing a building project.
Maybe in 50 years time, if everyone settles on a methodology, something similar will happen in our industry.
In my experience, uml is garbage.
You can achieve much, more by using TDD and have 10000x more fun.. by jumping in and writing test cases and seeing how your objects interact.
UML designs just suck. I am a coder, not a data entry type person.
Before TDD I used random pieces of paper to sketch out the basic entities and relationships and then jumped right into coding.
I don't see these tools being used commonplace and the popularity of them is whaning.
I'd say that UML is limited. Yes, you can represent basic relationships, but you still don't get much when you think about interactions and constraints (even with OCL)
If you want to give a software team "all the detail they need to build something" then put your efforts into requirements analysis and creating a nailed-down functional specification. This will contain descriptions of every feature that the customer wants. If those descriptions include UML diagrams then all well and good - in many cases UML is a better language than English/French/German/whatever for describing software - but don't get hung up on creating UML diagrams for the sake of it. Joel on Software has a series of feature articles on how to write functional specs and they are well worth reading - start here: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000036.html.
Related
I am looking for insight on modeling. I had a intro course on Design Patterns and basic class diagrams, sequence diagrams, and use cases.
The class diagrams I have found invaluable as a tool of organization in my programming. The use cases are moderately useful so far.
This semester I am in a class going into UML in much more depth i.e. Domain Analysis, Requirements Analysis, Software Design vs. Software Engineering etc.
There is a certain feeling that this is starting to be more voodoo-sciencey or non-concrete when we start trying to be precise with the ambiguities in scenarios, and changing requirements. Is UML past basic class diagrams and use-case diagrams practically useful in productivity in most applications?
It started out voodoo. Diagramming software designs has always been that way. It is a way of showing in pictures what you want to say about the design in a human language. If it was precise enough to generate code from, we'd go ahead and do that and dispense with the coding step altogether.
The only thing UML brings new to the older ways is that it is a standard. Even then, there are so many different kinds of "standard" diagrams that I have to snicker a little when calling it a standard.
However, the activity of design itself is extremely important for all but the most trivial of tasks. The question is whether you are going to spend some time up-front designing your system, or if you are going to do it on-the-fly, after having written a great deal of wrong or unnesscary code. If you want things done quickly and/or well, you do some design up front.
This doesn't just apply to writing software BTW. It is an inherent part of any complex creative activity. My father-in-law, a retired English teacher who writes his children longish postcards when he goes on vacation, actually writes outlines for his postcard messages. Most master painters and sculptors make test drawings first.
No.
All sorts and forms of documentation, are only useful as a means of communication. Documentation for documentations sake is a complete waste of time.
Writing UML is useful and productive only when it comes with a document that explains (in words) what is it you want, why, and how. only then UML can help to illustrate what you are trying to say in the document.
Software teams that produce endless amounts of UML just for the sake of drawing squares, are just wasting time.
You started out with modeling, which is a great thing to do, especially in computer science - you model all the time. Keep in mind UML is a standard for a modeling notation for software systems, nothing more (e.g. it is not an analysis or design methodology) and nothing less (e.g. it is not a way for developers to look productive by drawing nonsense).
You are on the right track, always keep in mind what is actually useful and gives you some value. This is not exactly relevant to your question, but sue cases are not use case diagrams, there are much more, have written form and might help you with much of what you described would be in your next course.
As to your concern, modeling is about abstracting from unimportant details, so some ambiguities might occour. The point is they should be unimportant for the purpose of modeling. For example it does not really matter if you include all the properties of your classes if you want to show the structure of design, e.g. use of some pattern. You can also use public properties without concerning yourself if they are private fields with getters and setters (Java), properties (C#) or generated object methods using metaprogramming (Ruby). The same holds for scenarios captured using use cases - of course you cannot (and should not try to) capture alternative branches using UML, but you can describe the conditions in use case descriptions just enough to avoid ambiguity without having to develop the system first and finding it is wrong afterwards.
As to the voodoo stuff - the problem is that UML is large and so many developers don't know how to use it right and often create more mess than value. Don't be confused by general disrespect for UML, the problem is in tool vendors, commitees and lazy developers... Behind many concepts in UML are well known formal models backed by academic science work, e.g. the state diagrams come from Harel statecharts (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0167642387900359). So my opinion it is not as much voodoo in principle, it is just oversold with tools not supporting the standard and also the standard tries to be and combine everything (it is an unified language...), however this slowly improves.
My advice for you would be try to learn what is important - those formalisms, analysis and design methods, try them practically and decide for yourself what is useful. If for no other reason, learn UML because it is the language for analysis and design, although large, it is still better than its ~50 predecessors combined:).
From my experience: Not really.
I never came across a really useful sequence diagram. Sequence diagrams stop being useful when the documented process becomes too complex, as you have a hard time following all the lines. But to understand a trivial process, I don't need a sequence diagram. When used as a design tool you will waste a ridiculous amount of time adjusting the diagrams, cussing MS Visio or whatever you use.
The notation however can be useful for a small snapshot when discussing something on a whiteboard. But this is valid for any notation style; UML is just well established, increasing the chances you are understood correctly.
Class diagrams are useful, both in design and in a posteriori documentation. But IMHO you shouldn't be too pedantic about them.
Not in MHO. It's completely superfluous as far as I am concerned.
In my object oriented programming class, we learned some of the main concepts of UML and I was just wondering if UML is common in real world situations or are there more popular methods.
There are certainly organizations that rely on UML, including a few that may expect you to answer OO design questions with UML in an interview. Plus, documentation tools like Doxygen generate UML-like diagrams to describe a class hierarchy.
Beyond that though, most groups I've worked with in academia or industry don't really use it. If you want an explanation of why, read "Death by UML Fever".
Generally agree with #chrisaycock. Would add a couple of things:
You should distinguish using UML for specification versus documentation. At the peak of its hype curve, UML was touted as the former. So development processes mandated modelling in UML before moving into code. That use has diminished greatly (although there are still pockets using executable uml, notably in real-time/embedded environments).
As a documentation tool, UML is still popular. UML class diagrams, for example, can convey the structure of a module in a way that is much more revealing and intuitive than linear code can ever be. Similarly sequence- or activity diagrams are very useful for understanding flow of control for an action that transcends a number of classes.
In the documentation context UML diagrams are increasingly being generated automatically rather than being manually created, e.g. from doxygen (as #chrisaycock mentions).
However it's also still useful for sketching out designs ahead of development e.g. on a whiteboard.
hth.
I once attended a Q&A session on UML and MDA in embedded systems where the panel included authors Bruce Powell Douglass and Steven Mellor. Having previously studied and worked on RT-SSADM projects and the Ward-Mellor methodology, I challenged Stephen Mellor on why a new way of software design comes along every 10 years before practitioners have hardly gotten to grips or truly understood the last one. He responded rather too honestly perhaps with "this way I sell more books"!
To some extent therefore I suggest that the hype surrounding any particular notation or methodology is driven primarily by CASE tool vendors and publishing houses; often the authors are also employed by the tool vendors and have titles like "Chief Evangelist".
That is not to say that these tools have no value; we should all be wary of such marketing, but on the other hand we also need to communicate our ideas and designs in an unambiguous and clear manner, and using a defined notation however inelegant, will always be better than some ad-hoc "sticks and boxes" notation that has no definitive semantics. Given that need for communication, UML (and derivatives such as SysML) is currently the most widely accepted and used notation, and currently enjoys the widest tool support. It differs from much that has gone before by being defined as a standard agreed by multiple parties rather the work on a single author or CASE tool vendor, so it is likely to develop rather than disappear.
I think the article, linked by #chrisaycock, could also have corollaries e.g., "Death by Agile Fever", "Death by CMM Fever", "Death by RT-SSADM Fever", ... ;-)
As #sfinnie stated, it really depends upon the usage, but UML by itself is nothing more than a notation. In order to be really useful, you need to follow some development method. #Clifford's post not withstanding, I'd recommend a mature method. Executable UML started as Shlaer-Mellor and has been in use for 19+ years. Douglass' method (not called ROPES anymore, but ???) has been around for 11 years. The Unified Process is based on Booch, OMT, and OOSE methods, so it can be considered 19+ years old as well. Of course you might find some other UML or non-UML development method that better fits your needs.
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
How do you prevent agile methodology with monthly sprints/iterations causing a fragmented design. For ex. take the case of design of Manhattan Streets vs Design of Boston streets. The blueprints for Manhattan Streets were designed as a whole resulting in easy manoeverability and driving. Boston streets were designed in a piece meal approach and its a nightmare getting around.
Streets are a bad analogy to use for software. Streets cannot be easily moved, rerouted, or changed without significant effort. Well-written software is an composition of orthogonal components that are easily reorganized and modified as needed.
The reason that agile development works is that both the developers and the software itself are agile. The developers respond quickly to change and the software they write is written in a manner that makes it responsive to change as well.
Refactor, refactor, refactor.
Agile development is not a mandate to throw away over-arching design. It makes a lot of sense to plan 'the big picture' - what the responsibilities of your major components are, and how they will interact, for example. In my own team, I find a reasonable compromise is to agree a broad public API up front, but defer detailed implementation decisions where possible. This allows individual developers the freedom to modify the design as the implementation evolves, while also gaining the benefit of hashing out different approaches at the design level, when changes are much cheaper. Modularity is also key - keep components specific in function and as decoupled from one another as possible. This minimises your overheads when you find you need to make changes to your implementation, and should increase the chances that individual components you write remain useful.
You can have a design phase that decides on the Streets. What buildings get built is determined in each phase.
I think that there is a tendency to do too little design/architecture in scrum projects. You can do constant refactoring but that can be alot of work, if something has not been designed. You can get into the same problem if there is an error in the design.
Use of SOLID principles would result in code which is loosely coupled & highly cohesive.
Remember design is the king.
IMHO analogies of software components with Buildings, Streets are just illogical. None of this is even remotely similar to software development or software design.
There is always a risk that Agile users will suggest adjusting the principals of agile to the situation at hand, however when this subsequently fails this leaves those who support the move to Agile open to criticism because Agile is not being adopted fully.
Fragmented design is a continuous risk with Agile because there is no value on architecture. What is needed is a methodology that uses the advantageous aspects of Agile such as Continuous Delivery but solves problems like the un-scalability of Agile. A possible approach is The Game of Thrones Methodology which does just this.
"Agile methodology" (and I assume you mean SCRUM, here) has little to do with the architecture of your design; the architecture being a property of the software or the system your creating (in the UML world you would maybe call it "artefacts").
"Agile" does not tell you anything about what kind of software you write, it can be used for any and all types of software or even easily for projects that have nothing to do with software at all.
So if you have the feeling that there is a bad software architecture in your agile project(s), then you should be looking around at what the actual cause is. Only because you are agile does not mean that everybody does what he wants without a plan, or that you need no documentation at all. While you won't specifiy every class down to the bit level before starting your work, you still will want a high-level architecture written down, even before the first sprint. Depending on your team size and constituency, you could imagine using your first sprint to even create your architecture.
UML is a great language to model software for business requirements, but there is a growing community that points some disadvantages for some lacking features.
What are the most significant disadvantages that you find crucial for UML and what could it be a good alternative to solve this lacking features?
The biggest one is that it's yet another layer of red tape that gets in the way of just $#%$#% coding the thing and making it work.
The fact that people use it to "model software for business requirements", as you put it, and other such process-oriented claptrap. UML started out as a conventionalised way for programmers to communicate software to other programmers in a pictorial form. In that sense it's just formalised napkin-scribbling - and as such it is very effective. You can draw a UML class diagram on a whiteboard and I can understand it without quibbling over notation.
But somewhere along the line someone got the idea that a drawing notation could somehow be a process in it's own right, or at least a formal part of a larger process. And that's just silly. UML diagrams are a fine way to illustrate books, and quite useful as a means for engineers to scribble ideas back and forth. But that's where it should have ended.
I can say at least three:
It takes a lot of time to keep the diagram reasonable and synchronized with the actual code. UML diagrams don't run, but require a lot of time. So they are good only if your organization size can manage them
You cannot represent every condition in a sequence diagram. It's impossible if you want to deliver. So state diagrams should convey basic facts, not all the possible outcomes.
Good UML software costs money and it takes some time to master properly.
So, I think UML is good as a complementary documentation role, and only if the size of your organization allows it.
Solutions... well, in the end, diagramming is just a way to convey high level information to another person, in space or time (e.g. could be you in some year time). Extreme Programming shifts the burden of information retrieval from dead tree to living brain. Of course, it assumes that the living brain never forgets, and never quits. Extreme programming uses redundancy to reduce the impact of such occurrences. In a large company, a strong layoff round could wipeout entire teams, so storing information into brains can be risky. On the other hand, large companies have human power to waste, hence the diagramming.
Also, as WDuffy points out, if you are a designer, and you have to communicate to a team of programmers what they have to implement, it's much easier to use a UML diagram. Of course, a small company with a small team has generally small goals, and you can organize people with a different style. A small company UMLing will only produce UML diagrams of their revolutionary product, and then it will be bankrupt.
UML is not good nor bad. It can be a good tool, but it must be used in the proper context.
Lacking features?
well, I found that UML is strongly aimed at an Object Oriented vision of the world. Our company mainly developed in python, with a strong focus on module level routines. Objects were lightweight data containers, but all the logic was done at the module level. It's difficult to properly model this implementation style at the UML level, unless you resort to some "hacks" in the terminology. I guess it's difficult to model in UML for functional or procedural languages.
Another thing I find annoying is the assumption of use case modeling as a diagram. My experience is that the best way to convey a use case is to write a short story or a short code tingling the feature you want to convey. The story should be short, one page maximum.
This approach has two advantages: if your story is a written prose, the Q/A team can read and test it easily. If your story is code, you can put it as a functional test and let it run during the night. A diagram does not satisfy any of these value added needs.
One issue with UML is due to its universality: things in UML cannot be always implemented directly in the target language, or some languages have capabilities that cannot be expressed in UML. So it can be better to know the implementation language beforehand, which restrain its universality.
See also the criticisms section on UML wikipedia page:
Standards bloat
Problems in learning and adopting
Cumulative Impedance/Impedance Mismatching
Dysfunctional interchange format
It's not Agile
What should have been the last word on UML was written by frustrated student "Candide Smith", well, really Eiffel author Bertrand Meyer.
Another disadvantage of UML is that it tends to overemphasize design, which can lead to 'analysis paralysis' (people over-analyze their problem) and feature creep (loosing sight of the actual problem). A UML design can only take you so far in solving a problem, and you have to be careful to jump into the code soon enough (but not sooner ;-).
UML is somewhat less applicable to the brave new world of loose typing and NoSQL databases. It has OO ideas of Class as a data structure rather than classification embed in it.
Another disadvantage, although not self-inflicted, is that it doesn't explicitly to facilitate abstraction. Everyone I know uses UML tools for more abstract modelling, but the way standards are written that is not obvious.
Another problem with UML (and big design up front in general) is that it's sometimes hard to anticipate all the nitty gritty implementation problems that you'll run into that may affect your design until you actually start implementing something. Granted, I'm a bioinformatics research programmer that works on small one-man projects, but I don't even believe in any design up front, at least for small projects. I believe in the following:
Make it work. (Just get a prototype up and running that has all the basic functionality, no matter how much it sucks. This forces you to see all the little nitty gritty details that might not come through in a formal analysis. Having an actual implementation of your idea makes it easier to see whether the idea was even really worth doing in the first place or whether it should be scrapped altogether.)
Make it right. (Only now, when you have a working prototype and you know that all the nitty gritty implementation problems are at least in principle solvable do you worry about good design. Refactor the heck out of it to follow good programming practices, reduce coupling, do proper error handling, yada yada yada.)
Make it fast. If it's application code, you'd better have proof that you've found the slow part. If it's generic library code, you'd better have good reason to believe that the piece of code could reasonably be the slow part in some use case for the library, i.e. don't optimize a function that noone would ever call in a loop.
For Class Diagrams in UML it only makes sense to use them if there is automated way to generate code directly from diagram. I have implemented such UML editor tool based on 4-tiers meta levels recommended by OMG (Object Management Group) and we had great success using UML in team of 5 devs over 2 years doing around 20-30 architectural iterations. The diagram was the root artifact of automated build chain making impact on hundreds of derived artifacts, APIs, generated Docs, DDLs, projects, tests etc.
So by itself UML in Class Diagrams part is great "programming" language if you actually do programming in it.
For Class Diagrams in UML if it is not translatable in automated way, then its fail.
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.