[PLUG] UML users?

[Phil Tomson]

On Mon, 19 May 2003, Rich Shepard wrote:

> On Mon, 19 May 2003, Phil Tomson wrote:
>
> > Perhaps, relative to changing a piece of hardware.  However, it's much
> > easier to change your design in a dynamically typed language than in a
> > statically typed one.  So let's say your change leads to needing to change
> > the type of an argument that shows up in a hundred or so function
> > declarations - not fun.  In a dynamically typed language there's no issue.
>
>   Exactly where a UML-enabled tool like Poseidon or Rational Rose comes in
> handy. Pull up the class diagram. Change the type of a variable (or the
> argument for a method) and the change is automagically made every place in
> the model. Of course, I'm not a professional designer of either hardware or
> software but it seems simple to me.

Interesting.  So this tends to bolster my argument that UML isn't as
neccessary for development in dynamically typed languages.

>
>   Tell you what, Phil. Stick with what makes you comfortable. You asked
> about UML because you knew nothing about it. If you want to trash it and
> fight it, I suggest that you contact the OMG and have it out with them. OK?
>

No, I'm not trying to trash it.  I'm trying to find out why people use it.

For me it seems like a step in the wrong direction, but if I can
understand why people choose to use it maybe I can understand why people
want to go that way and then offer them alternatives ;-)  I really do
think there might be better methodologies....

Phil